Hebrew Bible and Semitic Comparative Lexicography

HEBREW BIBLE AND SEMITIC COMPARATIVE LEXICOGRAPHY

Stanislav SEGERT Praha

The present paper draws attention to some aspects of the study of the lexical material in the Hebrew Bible from the comparative view-point, in its past and at present. Brief information will be given on arecent undertaking in Semitic Comparative lexicography which can be utilized in dealing with the lexical problems of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Prom the very beginning Semitic comparative lexicography has been conceived and developed as a discipline serving the inter pretation of the Bible; on the other hand, the lexical material from the Old Testament, in original Hebrew and in the ancient Semitic versions, Targum, Syriac and Arabic, formed the bulk of the material on which the extant comparative dictionaries of the Semitic languages were based. Leaving aside the perhaps unconscious interpretation of archaie Hebrew words with help of the contemporary Aramaic among the Qumran Essenes 1), we can see the first application of a comparative method for the interpretation of the Bible in the traditions about the maid of Rabbi Jehuda who was able to explain some difficult words in the psalms, with help-in at least one case, certainly-of Aramaic 2); the knowledge of an Aramaic-or Arabic-speaking traveller was also used for the same purpose 3). The mediaeval Jewish scholars, beginning with Sa Cadya 4), made more and more use of Aramaie and Arabic comparative material. The first great systematic undertaking in the field of Semitic comparative lexicography, the Lexicon Pentaglotton by Valentin

1) Cf. E. Y. KUTSCHER, Hlfwn whrqc hlfwny JI mgylt Yf'yhw hJlmh mmgylwt Ym hmlb. (The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll) Jeru salem 1959, p. 241, sub 34. 2) b. Ros ha-sana 26b. 3) Ibidem, toy"häk.; Ps. Iv 23; cf. ArOr 25,1957, pp. 25-26. 4) 892-942. COMPARATIVE LEXICOGRAPHY 205

SCHINDLER 1), published in 1612, was based mostly on the Bible: besides its Hebrew original, the Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic versions were taken into account, but the meanings of the Semitic words were stated with the help of Greek and Latin translations of the Bible. The stress on Hebrew, especially Biblical Hebrew, is to be seen at first sight in the arrangement of the second work of this kind, compiled by Johann Heinrich HOTTINGER 2), Erymologicum orientale sive Lexicon harmonicum heptaglotton, of 1661. The most complete and reliable Comparative Dictionary of the Semitic languages was and still remains the Lexicon heptaglotton by Edmond CASTELL 3), published in 1669; its connection with the study of the Bible is clear from the fact that it appeared as an appendix to W ALTON'S London Polyglot Bible. For three centuries no Comparative Dictionary of Semitic languages has been published in which the progress in this field has been systematicaIly coIlected. The results of monographical lexical studies dealing with individual words or word groups as weIl as the rich comparative material contained in some commentaries and exegetical studies are of course summarized in the introductory paragraphs dealing with roots and words in the big lexica to the Old Testament. In the last years a great deal of work has been devoted to the study of individual words, roots and etymologicaIly or semantically connect ed groups of words, both from the standpoint of Hebrew or Semitic studies alone, and as the prerequisites for a deeper understanding of the relevant New Testament terms 4). Etymological research, often using newly discovered Semitic texts from Antiquity and connected with the comparativist approach, served as a basis for historical interpretation and religious evaluation of the Hebrew words and word groups. In concentrated search on inherent meaning the function of words in their context was frequently disregarded. James BARR'S criticism attempted to stress the function of words in the context, introducing some useful concepts and methods of modern linguist ics 5). The classical philologists know weIl the maxim "Verba valent usu". The modern theory of generallinguistics speaks about the determina-

1) Cf. ArOr 28, 1960, p. 470-471. 2) Ibidem, p. 471. 3) Ibidem, p. 471-472. 4) Especially in the Theologisches Wiirterbuch zum Neuen Testament. 5) J. BARR, The Semantics 01 Biblical Language, Oxford 1961, pp. 108-109.