Even When He Is Silent

Not long ago I had the pleasure of hearing a choral performance of Even When He Is Silent, an anonymous poem set to music by the Norwegian composer Kim André Arnesen. While I can’t provide a video of the performance I heard, fortunately you can hear a lovely rendition conducted by Anton Armstrong by clicking the link to YouTube, located here:

The words express deep religious conviction, and the musical setting by Arnesen does them justice. The lyric is short and goes as follows:

silentI believe in the sun, even when it is not shining.
I believe in love, even though I don’t feel it.
I believe in God, even when he is silent.

The liner notes identified the poem as originating on a wall at Auschwitz.

While I was deeply moved by the sentiment, the music and the superb performance by a talented group of singers, my historian’s sense was pricked. My period is the ancient world, so it is no surprise that I might not know a composition emanating from the era of the Holocaust, but there is something about this language that strikes me as a little too pat for what I would imagine a concentration inmate inscribing at Hell’s portal. I thought to myself, I wonder what the original language of this poem might say? I expected to find that original language to be Yiddish or German, perhaps even French. I was quite certain it wouldn’t be English.

Of course I turned to Google–where else does one go at first these days for such things? I expected to find some recent quotations and a link to some article or book where the original text would be cited. Much to my astonishment, there was no such link! I spent hours looking at everything Google retrieved for me, but all I could find were articles that quoted the poem in English. I did find one version of it in French, but that was clearly a translation of the English, not a claim to have the original language.

One issue was quickly resolved. Whatever the provenance of this quote may be, it has nothing to do with Auschwitz. There is a reason why many people associate it with Auschwitz, though. In January 2015 a public ceremony was held at Auschwitz and Prince Charles of Wales read the poem there. An example of how the poem is described that day from the (England) Telegraph [“Survivors remember Auschwitz: ‘Every time I come here I feel fearful'”, 1/27/15]:

The Prince finished his short speech by reading out a three-line anonymous poem scratched on to a wall by a victim of the Holocaust.

Notice that the journalists make no claim the poem was discovered at Auschwitz itself. It’s just “a wall”. But they do go so far as to state it was written by a victim of the Holocaust. There is no indication of why they believe that to be the case.

Another surprising result of my search was that Google could not find a single example of this quote earlier than 2005. If the quote was discovered in some connection to the Holocaust, written by someone in a camp which was discovered at the end of the war, how likely is it that the first time it is cited is 40 years later?

If you run your own search you should find what I found. One set of articles that attribute the quote to a discovery in the German city of Cologne. Another set that seems to contradict the first. But none of these articles or links is earlier than 2005 (that I have found so far), none quote the poem in it’s original language, and none provide any evidence that the poem had some connection to the Holocaust or a Jewish author.

My preliminary conclusion is that this story is a false attribution. The poem was written in English and circulated anonymously. Someone thought that it sounded like what might be the words of a person in a bleak place such as a bombed out city or concentration camp. Someone else heard this, loved the poem, and posted it as if it were exactly that.

This sort of phenomenon is not at all unusual. There is a beautiful song composed in Yiddish and made famous by (of all people) Joan Baez called Dona Dona. (On Baez’s recording, the song is named “Donna Donna”.) The first line of the lyric is “Calves are easily bound and slaughtered Never knowing the reason why.” Early in the history of this song, someone believed it to be the work of a Concentration Camp inmate or survivor, and there are not a few references to it that way. In fact, it was written by two American Jewish artists, Shalom Secunda and Aaron Zeitlin, and it had nothing to do with the Holocaust. It was written for a play that began its run in the New York Yiddish theater in 1940.

Another similar error occurred in 1967. The Israeli artist Naomi Shemer composed a beautiful song about Jerusalem, Jerusalem of Gold. After the Six Day War, it became an anthem for those who were delirious over the reunification of the city. Large numbers of people are convinced that Shemer composed the song out of nationalistic pride at this event. But the truth is that she wrote it several months before the start of the war, so it is not possible that she composed it as some sort of victory chant.

I am mindful of one of the important principles of my profession: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” In other words, if I simply rely on my statement of the absence of a citation, that evidence can be disproved simply by discovering an earlier quote. The closer in time to the end of WW2, the more likely it becomes that the quote has authenticity. And so rather than state my conclusions as some sort of absolute, I would rather post it as a query. Has anyone found this quote cited, described, perhaps even photographed in situ at a time closer to when it is alleged to have been composed?

On Halakhah, Sharia and Canon

This is a revision of a comment I made to a group on Facebook as part of a discussion on whether and to what extent religious views should influence the civil law of a country.

One of the features of the intellectual history of the Middle Ages was that each of the major religions at roughly similar times came to the realization that some codification of their principles had become necessary. Originally this was not considered important as everything was included in the Torah (Jews), the Christian Bible (Christians) or the Quran (Muslims). But over the centuries more and more principles were added to the core documents, and eventually it became impossible to track it all without some sort of compilation and (eventually) an index.

For the Jews, this framework was called the Halakhah, for the Muslims, the Sharia, and for the Church, it was the Canon.

As things turned out, for all three of these systems unanimous adoption was fleeting (and perhaps never existed). The Jews formally recognized two equally valid systems, basically Eastern and Western (Sephardic and Ashkenazic) in the publication of the major digest called the Shulhan Arukh with the “corrections” of R. Moshe Isserles. Since then even more wrinkles have further divided the notion of a uniform code.

The Muslim version of the Halakhah was the Sharia. It codified the principles of the Quran, the Haddith, and as with the Jews, different versions had to exist to deal with differences among the various Islamic movements and sects. One of the Arabic names of the Sharia is the Qānūn-e Islāmī, which brings us to the third system, the Canon Law of the Catholic Church.

Christians faced exactly the same problems as did the Jews and Muslims, and went about solving them in similar ways. The Roman Church compiled a list of rules which has been subject to revision. And just as the Jews and Muslims divided along various religious fractures, the Christian church split along many different lines. But what to do about the Canon?

Of course it wouldn’t do to create new forms of the Christian church and still acknowledge the authority of the Canon, so the various major movements created different sets of quasi-legal standards. For example, the Anglican Communion spoke of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Bishops’ Book, etc.

The important point for this discussion is that in the modern world, all of this has coalesced into a series of debates about the extent to which these religious principles should be enforced on the citizens of various countries who may or may not have any connection to the religious communities that created the systems.

We all have heard (but I suspect most of us do not really understand) about the application of Sharia to citizens of some Muslim countries, especially in Saudi Arabia and Iran (which ironically have different Sharia systems owing to the differences among the sects).

One of the fascinating aspects of the creation of the State of Israel is that for the first time since the time of the Maccabees an independent Jewish state has the ability to legislate in a way that affects Jews who might not agree with whomever is in power and even non-Jews who are also citizens of the State. To what extent (for example) should Jews or non-Jews be able to raise pigs on their farms? How kosher do restaurants need be?

And in the United States, where a majority of people identify with Christianity, how much should Christian principles define the life of the country? Not all that long ago, many states had laws which forbade the opening of shops on the Christian sabbath. And employers were free to mandate work on Saturday, which created enormous problems for those Jews who wished to observe their sabbath.

The opposition of the Catholic Church to abortion is summarized in Canon 1398: A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

The question that the United States continues to work through despite the Supreme Court’s decision upholding a woman’s right to control her own body is whether that Canon will be applied to citizens of the United States who do not recognize the authority of the Church. Protestants, and especially Evangelicals who obviously do not think of themselves as ascribing to the Canon, are nevertheless working their way ideologically through the same issues.

I suspect this argument will be going on for a very long time.

Of dots and peculiar cantillation signs…Part 1: Dots

A reader asks:

There are a lot of funny touches in the Esau stories (like the dots in Vayishlach on vayechabkehu and there was a mercha kefula  in the reading this week, and some other funny things that I asked Jack about.  Maybe it has to do with all the deception in one of the most dysfunctional families in the Torah.

There are a few issues tangled in this short paragraph, but let’s start with the dots. In the entire Tanakh there are 15 places where our Masoretic Bibles place dots over words. Of those, 10 occur in the Torah. One of those 10 occurs at Genesis 33:4 where we read:

 וַיָּ֙רָץ עֵשָׂ֤ו לִקְרָאתוֹ֙ וַֽיְחַבְּקֵ֔הוּ וַיִּפֹּ֥ל עַל־צַוָּארָ֖ו וַ֗יִּ֗שָּׁ֗קֵ֑֗ה֗וּ֗ וַיִּבְכּֽוּ׃

Translation: And Esau ran towards him (Jacob) and embraced him and he fell on his neck. And he kissed him and they wept.

I have kept this translation literal rather than attempting to convey any nuance that might be intended by an idiomatic expression such as “fell on one’s neck.” The question, for the moment, is why the verb vayishakehu is written with a dot placed over each letter.

The answer is not difficult to find: dotted letters were a common scribal device throughout the region in the Hellenistic era into Late Antiquity for indicating a word or phrase regarded as requiring deletion. In our Masoretic biblical manuscripts these and a few other editor’s marks are called tiqunei soferim which means “scribal corrections.” In other words, their dots operated like our “strike through.” If we simply delete the dotted word, the translation becomes: And Esau ran towards him, embraced him, fell on his neck and kissed him.

But can we analyze this further and possibly discover a reason why the Scribes might have wanted to delete the word rendered as and he kissed him? Part of the reason may possibly be found in the idiomatic expression I referenced above. What exactly is meant by and he fell on his neck?

The same expression is used at Genesis 45:14, where we read:

וַיִּפֹּ֛ל עַל־צַוְּארֵ֥י בִנְיָמִֽן־אָחִ֖יו וַיֵּ֑בְךְּ וּבִנְיָמִ֔ן בָּכָ֖ה עַל־צַוָּארָֽיו׃

And (Joseph) fell on Benjamin’s neck and wept, and Benjamin wept on his neck.

And yet again a chapter later (Gen 46:29):

וַיֶּאְסֹ֤ר יוֹסֵף֙ מֶרְכַּבְתּ֔וֹ וַיַּ֛עַל לִקְרַֽאת־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל אָבִ֖יו גֹּ֑שְׁנָה וַיֵּרָ֣א אֵלָ֗יו וַיִּפֹּל֙ עַל־צַוָּארָ֔יו וַיֵּ֥בְךְּ עַל־צַוָּארָ֖יו עֽוֹד׃

(And) Joseph prepared his chariot and journeyed towards Israel his father in Goshen. And when he saw him, he fell on his neck and he wept on his neck some more.

From all these citations you might conclude that this was a common Hebrew expression, but that is not the case. In fact we have now exhausted the list of citations which employ this phrase or something close to it. The notion of “falling on someone’s neck” is not exactly obvious, although many translators have chosen to render this literally–as if the person fell to the ground on his neck. But since it is hard to embrace someone in this position, I submit that it is an idiom of some sort which was familiar to the author (and readership) of the passages at the time, but has since been lost to us. Although there is almost certainly no connection, you might get a chuckle out of considering the English idiom of necking. (Thanks to a friend for drawing the comparison.)

It may not have been lost just to us. Since no other biblical source seems to use this particular idiom, I would suggest that the idiom was lost even on some who transmitted the text. One of those editors may have tried to explain “he fell on his neck” by inserting the gloss “he kissed him.” A later Scribe, recognizing that a gloss had entered the text, dotted “and he kissed him” as an instruction to other Scribes that when they copied this text they should omit that word.

While I haven’t found evidence yet that would allow me to better understand “fell on his neck,” there is substantial evidence that other Scribes understood the dots to mean “delete.” In the cases of several others of the dotted words (eg Num 3:39 and Num 21:30) the words actually are omitted in several Masoretic manuscripts as well as ancient versions of the Bible (eg the Samaritan Torah, the Septuagint and even the Babylonian Talmud.)

To summarize my reconstruction of the history of this text, there was at some point in the evolution of biblical Hebrew an idiom “to fall on someone’s neck” which clearly means to demonstrate great affection. A later editor, perhaps not familiar with the idiom or just trying to explain it to those who might not be, added the word which is rendered and they kissed to explain the phrase. Still later a subsequent editor who knew that and they kissed was not part of the original text marked it for deletion.

If you would like to consult the technical references I used in preparing this article, please see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd Revised Edition, Minneapolis, 2012 pp 51-52 and 203. For a different take on the interpretation of dotted words (this instance from the perspective of the early sages), see Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, New York, 1962 pp 43ff.

This is the first part of the question. In the next blog entry I will try to answer the question about merkha k’fulah.

Back to Qametz Qaton

When I first started this blog, one of the first articles I wrote was an explanation of the rule on pronouncing the Hebrew vowel qametz as o as in hole as opposed to its more usual pronunciation of a as in father. I chose this topic then because as a Hebrew teacher I have noticed that students find it perplexing. This week that discussion returned as a colleague asked me to comment on the word qodashim found in Leviticus 6:18 and repeated at 6:22. There we find it as part of the term qodesh qodashim.

Qodesh Qodashim in Hebrew

This happens to be the term associated with the inner sanctum of the Temple and in such context it is often rendered “The Holy of Holies.” In this case, however, the meaning is more prosaic–the author is indicating that a particular foodstuff of offering has the highest degree of sacred status and in that context the translation is better rendered most holy or most sacred.

The meaning of the text is reasonably clear, but the pronunciation of the first vowel in qodashim is anything but.

When we first looked at the text, both the version of the Hebrew Bible we used and my electronic version contained the same spelling of the text. The vowel was a qametz followed by a diacritical mark called a metheg. Under normal circumstances, this indicates an a pronunciation, so the word would be vocalized: qadashim. The problem is that no one pronounces it that way. And that is the reason that I have been spelling the word qodashim rather than qadashim.

The View from Ashkenaz: What’s All the Fuss About?

At this point I need to explain that there is a significant part of the Hebrew-aware community that doesn’t see any problem here. The community of Jews who speak with the dialect of the Eastern European Hebrew heritage (known by the Hebrew designation Ashkenaz) pronounce the vowel qametz something akin to the aw in claw. They are consistent in this pronunciation: each sign that looks like any sort of qametz is pronounced the same.

Speakers of Israeli Hebrew, Jews from the Mediterranean and Islamic regions of the world use the variants on qametz that we are discussing and this has become the dominant pronunciation. But it should be conceded that one reason there may be problems here is that the group of scholars who invented the sign qametz almost certainly spoke something more akin to Ashkenaz and therefore did not distinguish among the various forms of qametz. How do we know this? Because they used the same sign for all the variants. They could just as easily have chosen other signs. So Ashkenazi Jews are not without a serious argument when they ask what the fuss is about here. I’ll return to this concept at the end of our journey.

The reason is that the Tiberian Masoretes were not the only group of scholars annotating the text of the Bible. There were at least two other groups (deemed Babylonian and Palestinian in most handbooks) whose diacritical marks suggest that they had a pronunciation more akin to the non-Ashkenazi Jewish community. And even without that evidence, we can’t simply ignore the fact that there is a substantial, important and lettered community of people who have faithfully transmitted a dialect of Bibilical Hebrew which has three separate phonemes for the sign qametz.

Back to Basics: The Segholate Nouns

Notice that the word preceding qodashim is qodesh. The grammatical form of qodesh is well understood. It belongs to a category of nouns termed segholate. The segholates are among the oldest base forms in Hebrew. What I mean by this is that a number of core, common Hebrew words are in the category. For example: yeled (child), melekh (king), shemesh (sun). All of these words began as monosyllabic words containing an a vowel. The original Semitic word for child was yald. King was malk. Sun was shamsh.

In the course of time speakers of Hebrew developed a dislike of consonant clusters. Notice that each of the Hebrew words above ended in two consonants with no vowel between them. Hebrew speakers began to insert just a bit of a helper vowel between the two consonants. Malk became malik. Shamsh became shamish. Eventually, the 2nd (newly created) vowel started to exert some influence over the first, original vowel. People liked to homogenize the two vowels. So in time (and in fact by the era of our Biblical texts) yalid became YEled, malik became MElekh, and shamish became SHEmesh. The reason I capitalized the letters was to show you where to put the accent or stress on the word.

This placement of the stress seems to violate the rules of Hebrew pronunciation, which prefers the accent on the last syllable. But in this case, by retaining the accent on the first syllable, the Hebrew speaker was holding on to the original word. If you think about it, where was the stress on the word malk? You see, all these words had only one syllable, so there was only one place for the stress!

One of the interesting aspects of segholate nouns is that they have a particular pattern for forming plurals. Lets look at a few of these: yeled becomes y’ladim; melekh becomes m’lakhim; regel becomes r’galim. In other words, the eh/eh vowel sequence changes to shva followed by an a vowel in the second syllable. But the phenomenon I’m pointing to is that the very first vowel shrivels up to sh’va. The reason for this is simple: in the plural, the natural inclination of Hebrew to accent the final syllable overpowers that first syllable. As the speaker rushes to get to the third syllable, the first vowel is slurred over.

We can now turn out attention to the word qodashim. What we expect based on the examples above is q’dashim with that first syllable shrinking to sh’va. Part of the explanation for why this does not happen lies in the fact that there are actually three types of segholate nouns as we mentioned above. The most common type is the eh/eh we demonstrated. All of these are based on ancient groundforms which began with the a vowel. Some segholates originate in a word that featured the i vowel. And what we have here is a word whose origin goes back to an o or u vowel.

One phenomenon we see demonstrated here is that it is more difficult to slur over the o/u vowel than the a vowel. People remember that o sound and continue to express it.

A second issue here is that the qof (quf) is one of the more striking consonants in the Hebrew language. Although modern speakers do not differentiate the quf from plain k sound of the kaf. But the original sound of the qof was produced deep in the throat–a kind of clicking sound. When a consonant is produced in the throat, most speakers will retain a vowel to help them pronounce that sound. In other words, it is more difficult to slur a throaty consonant than others.

So we have two reasons to preserve the original sound of the vowel. First, the “stickiness” of o vowels and second, the need to assist the speaker in pronouncing a throat consonant.

For these reasons we expect to see the word qodashim. But when we look at text, we do not see that. We see what appears to be qadashim. Beneath the qof we find the qamatz. Some knowledgeable speakers might say that this is no problem. We have the qamatz qaton, a vowel that is written exactly like a regular qamatz, but is pronounced o as in hole. The trouble with that explanation is that the qamatz qaton has a specific spelling convention and this instance does not agree with that convention. Next to the qamatz we see a diacritical mark called a metheg. That mark, shows that the qa is an open syllable. A qamatz in an open syllable is an ordinary qamatz, not a qamatz qaton.

What is going on here? Should we ignore our inclinations and pronounce the word qadashim rather than qodashim?

At roughly this stage of the game I decided to have a look at my copy of Biblia Hebraica, the most commonly used text for Biblical Hebrew scholars. This text has undergone something of an evolution. One of the earlier versions was prepared by Rodolph Kittel, who became infamous by assuming a position at a German University after ensuring that his Jewish forebear was dispatched to a concentration camp. As you might imagine, Jewish scholars have never been enamored of consulting that version, and so it came as a great relief when a new version, vastly improved by consultation to original manuscripts, was published as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) in the 1960s. This is the version that I consulted.

In Lev 6:10 we have the first of three occurrences of the term qodesh qodashim in the chapter and I found qametz followed by metheg. But in 6:18 and 6:22 something different! In both those verses, the qametz hatuf (aka hataf qametz) is printed. This vowel would have been very easy to explain and I happily reported to my colleague that the mystery was solved. The qametz qaton is a simply slurring of the o vowel which would be completely normal for a segholate plural. The first instance must be a case of misprint or perhaps a misreading of the manuscript–after all, these printed versions are all the result of someone staring at a manuscript–and often a poor quality photocopy of a manuscript.

My giddiness at having solved the puzzle was short lived.

One of my study partners immediately informed me that her version of BHS has the qametz/metheg spelling. What’s going on here? This part is not so complicated. The BHS is the premiere text of the Hebrew Bible for most of the scholarly community. As such, there are new editions which correct errors from time to time. My edition happens to be the first (produced in the mid-1960s) and there have been several since. In the more recent editions, the text we are examining was corrected to qametz/metheg.

Wanting just a bit more evidence I turned to the Qoren edition of the Hebrew Bible. The Qoren was the first Hebrew Bible entirely typeset in Israel and it was meticulously prepared from new photographs of the most complete Biblical text, namely the Leningrad Codex. In another article I will discuss the available manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible, but for now, all you need to know is that the Qoren text also has qametz followed by metheg.

Bottom line: my simple and elegant solution was pulverized.

Is there another solution? As it turns out, not really. In fact, the great grammarian of the classical Hebrew language, Gesenius, lists this spelling and simply finds it to be an exception. Grammatically it appears to be a qametz that should be pronounced a as in father. But no one would pronounce it that way.

As I mentioned earlier, Ashkenazi Jews would pronounce it aw. Among non-Ashkenazi Jews, it is essentially universally pronounced o. And there is a good reason for this whatever the spelling: the close proximity of this word to the base form qodesh. When seeing the phrase qodesh q?dashim, it is almost impossible to pronounce it any other way!

I have a personal theory as to why this spelling never bothered the Masoretes. I believe that the pronunciation of the Tiberian Masoretes was closer to the Ashkenazi than the Sephardi pronunciation. If so, they would have heard little difference–they would say qodesh qawdashim and that would have worked well for them. Some day I hope to be able to examine this passage in a manuscript vocalized in the Babylonian system. But that will have to wait for another day.



On the Definition of Christianity

During the part of my career in which the Jewish community tasked me with the job of doing whatever is in our power to retain Jewish kids for posterity, it all seemed so clear and obvious to me. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews are Jews. Secular Jews are (oddly enough from a religious perspective) Jews. Reconstructionist Jews are Jews.  Jews who join other religions are still Jews, but they are not practicing Judaism.  Christians are not Jews. For people untrained in the arcania of Jewish theology, some of this might not be obvious, and perhaps I’ll explain in greater detail in another article.  But for now, let’s take these basic principles as givens.

In the 1970s and since, some groups of Evangelical Christians set new goals for converting Jews to Christianity. Of course, most Christians would have welcomed Jewish converts. But the difference Jews noticed here was that these groups didn’t just specifically target Jews, they adopted a new strategy: the claim that worshiping as a Christian did not mean renouncing Judaism. The idea was that missionaries might have an easier time if they could convince Jews that following Christ did not mean abandoning their parents or religious community.

The Reader might recall that for centuries, the Church had made something of a big deal out of the necessity for Jews to disown their ancestral faith in order to be accepted as Christians. So this was a rather new idea, especially to Jews  who had some vivid memories concerning the Inquisition.

One of the odder consequences of this new movement is that those of us in the organized Jewish community confronted people who were not Jews in any sense that we normally understood, but who had ostensibly converted to Judaism and then, while adopting some Jewish rituals, also accepted Christ. To us, this seemed like a ruse, a subterfuge, really not fair play.

Let me hasten to acknowledge that the founder of the movement called Jews for Jesus, Moshe Rosen, was indeed technically a Jew by birth. He was raised in a Jewish home, and does seem to have made his decision to join Christianity based on a conviction that he could adopt that religion without renouncing his Jewish identity. The problem Mr. Rosen faced was that an astonishingly small number of his eventual followers could make the same claims. After decades of evangelizing, there have been very few Jews who have joined his cause.

Let me also hasten to say that although Judaism is no longer an evangelical religion, I and most Jews recognize, understand and accept that other religions (especially Christianity and Islam) are evangelical in nature. The issue for us in the matters I’ve been discussing is fair play. We believe that the Jewish students who are meeting people of other faiths are entitled to know that they are being solicited to consider abandoning the faith of their ancestors in favor of a new religion.

Inevitably, we are led to the question of “How does one define a Jew?” Is Judaism an ethnicity, a religion, a nationality? We must have some sort of definition if we want to understand what it means to be a Jew or practice Judaism (and we might have to admit that those two terms are different things rather than two sides of the same coin.) The alternative is “anything goes.” Anyone can say or do anything and call themselves Jews. Conversely, Jews can say or do anything and still claim they are practicing Judaism.

To shorten a long story, after many years of dealing with Jewish students at the University of California at Berkeley and subsequently, in the early days of Internet chat rooms (called UseNet back then), many of us worked on a definition that seemed to satisfy most people. Jews have been known for a very long time as “the people of the Book” and there is something to that notion. Jews are people who accept a specific version of the Bible as sacred (ie, originating either directly or via inspiration from God), and reject any notion that God is multiple, divisible, anything but the One. The most sacred single text of Judaism is the Sh’ma, “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.” Even secular Jews usually have no problem with the Sh’ma. To recapitulate, Judaism is the religion of those people who teach that God is One and that God’s message is contained within a library of sacred works that most of the world calls the Old Testament. (The word “old” sometimes conveys the idea of “outmoded” so many Jews prefer to use terms such as the Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Testament or the Tanakh, which is one of the Hebrew names of the book.)

This definition works pretty well. Why aren’t Jews the same as Muslims? After all, the Muslims are if anything even more strictly monotheistic than Jews. Because the sacred scripture of the Muslims is not the Old Testament, but rather the Quran. Now the Muslims do concede that both Jewish and Christian scripture is worthy of study and religious status. In fact, the Muslims agree as Jews do not that Jesus was a Prophet. But they insist that the primary source of religious inspiration is the Quran. Neither Jews nor Christians are willing to acknowledge the Quran, so this becomes a basic measure of distinction.

As another example of the importance of canon, consider the Samaritans. The Samaritans accept the first five books of the Old Testament (the Torah) but do not consider the remaining books of the Old Testament to be worthy of sacred status. Jews, on this basis, reject  the Samaritans for inclusion in Judaism, and the Samaritans agree that they are not Jews.

The Karaite sect has proven an interesting borderline case. The Karaites split off from the Jews around the 8th century. By that time, the rabbis had well established themselves as arbiters of religious custom and law and generated a large body of literature designed to interpret Jewish tradition. Many Jews began to chafe under what they felt was the burden of an elite unattested in scripture. Their movement accepted the sacred status of all of Jewish scripture–the Old Testament–but rejected  rabbinic authority to interpret that scripture. Their movement became wildly popular and some historians have suggested that in its heyday, Karaism may have had adherents that outnumbered the followers of the rabbis.

In modern times, the Karaites have diminished to a relatively small population. Some of them have requested the right to live in Israel, which has led to discussion among religious Jews as to whether they should be considered Jewish or not. Unlike the Samaritans, the Karaites are not only monotheistic, but share the same exact scripture as Rabbinic Jews. While opinions have varied, the consensus has been that they should be permitted to come to Israel and enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rabbinic Jewish community.

In other words and to sum up, at least for Jews, scripture (the canon) matters.

Christians too hold that their Scriptures are sacred, but again, those books (the Gospels, Epistles and Apocrypha) were not included by most of the Jewish community as they were promulgated. Those Jews who did accept the Christian scriptures became Christians. At first and in the early days of Christianity there was a sense among Christians that Jews could indeed accept the teachings of the Christian Bible and yet continue to worship as Jews. But soon (on the scale of religious history) most Christians denied this possibility and the rabbinic Jewish community was all too happy to accept that judgment.

In addition to the scriptural issue, most Jews have historically been uneasy with Christian groups who have maintained various dual nature or Trinitarian views of God. Although the Jewish critique pales in comparison to the Islamic viewpoint, nevertheless, Jews have always had a sense that Christianity is a tad less than monotheistic in its approach to the Divine than they could accept. This is not to say that Jews have labeled Christians as polytheistic. Over more than a thousand years, those Jewish scholars who have considered the matter have concluded that Christian doctrine is sufficiently monotheistic to avoid the label of polytheism but they have held that Jews ought to know better.

In my debates with Jews for Jesus and other so-called Messianic Jews, these arguments have stood the test of time. Although bristling and adamant that Christianity is purely monotheistic and asserting that Divine Revelation did not end with the Jewish Bible, it was pretty difficult for most evangelical discussants to overcome the simple definition based on Scripture.

In recent days, all this has come to my mind because of the odd circumstance that a member of the Mormon faith will be a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States. Large numbers of people will likely be voting for Mitt Romney even though the incumbent is a member in good standing of the Protestant community. In the midst of all this, a few people have raised the question as to whether Mormonism should be considered Christianity.

Based on the discussion I recapitulated above, I had thought this would be something of a “no-brainer.” Of course (I imagined) Christians would deny that Mormonism should be considered Christianity. This was clear to me because 1) Mormons accept the authority of a prophet who lived long after prophecy was declared at an end by Christians as well as Jews, and 2) Mormons accept as Scripture a book which is rejected by most Christians.

It turns out that I was wrong. Not entirely, but enough to make things interesting. Of course, Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Churches have a set of standards that would preclude Mormons from being considered Catholic or Orthodox. These churches have elaborate hierarchies and long historical standards regarding the canon.

But disputes about the canon are nothing new. The reason why some Bibles contain the Apocrypha (books like Maccabees and Tobith) and others do not is that some Churches accept their value as Scripture and others do not. As for the recognition of sacred persons such as prophets and saints, here too we find ample room for disagreement. In northern Israel and Lebanon there is a numerically significant group of Christians known as the Maronites. These are distinct from Roman Catholics only because they insist on recognizing as a saint a person who Rome declined to beatify. But no one would deny that Maronites are Christians.

As I looked further and further in to this, it became clear to me that there is an interesting issue here. As I said above, while we can determine pretty easily who is a Catholic and who isn’t, I was finding it very difficult to define who is a Christian. What makes a Christian a Christian?

I asked one person raised as a Roman Catholic how she defines a Christian, and her reply was instructive: anyone who believes that Jesus is God should be considered a Christian. Technically this definition could easily have excluded many of Jesus’ own followers. Today it might exclude some Unitarians and perhaps even some Quakers. This definition makes no connection to a sacred scripture. And it doesn’t appear to rule out pagans who might (for example) include Jesus as one among many gods. I pushed my friend on this question and it produced a slight refinement in the definition: A person may claim to be a Christian if they believe that Jesus is the one and only God.

Of course one lay person does not a theology make, so it’s time to do some real homework. How do the standard dictionaries define Christianity?

Oxford English Dictionary: The edition of 1971 provides four definitions. I’ll skip the first since it is denoted as obsolete and the third and fourth as they are irrelevant to our discussion. The second reads: The religion of Christ; the Christian faith; the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his disciples.

Websters: the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies.

As one might expect, the encyclopedias do a bit better job, usually beginning with a short definition, and then expanding to cover additional topics.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (on-line citation): Christianity is the name given to that definite system of religious belief and practice which was taught by Jesus Christ in the country of Palestine, during the reign of the Roman Emperor, Tiberius, and was promulgated, after its Founder’s death, for the acceptance of the whole world, by certain chosen men among His followers.

Wikipedia (cited 5/27/12): Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings. Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.

This is of course not any sort of comprehensive list, either of dictionaries or encyclopedias, but I think it is sufficient to discover a few commonalities.

First of all Jesus is important. All sources agree that Christian belief requires acknowledgment of Jesus as the founder and leader of the Christian religion. Interesting to me, none of these sources cite a requirement to believe that Jesus is God, although that is unquestionably a foundational belief in most Christian churches.

What about the canon, the list of sacred books? Several of the sources specifically cite the need to respect the New Testament.  The OED is one source that does not specifically mention the New Testament. But how should we understand the phrase the system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ and his disciples? Where would one look to find these “doctrines and precepts” if not in the transmitted words and doctrines of Jesus and his disciples that we know as the New Testament?

My conclusion is that as with Judaism, there are two factors which in combination can determine whether it is reasonable to consider someone a Christian. First, a belief in the centrality of Jesus as the primary teacher of the faith, and second, a belief that the source for knowledge about Jesus is the canon of sacred scripture.

So does this mean that I now have a tool which can determine whether Mormonism should be considered Christian? Although I had initially thought so, on reflection, I must admit that case is not clear.

In discussion with a friend who teaches the history of Christian movements in the United States, I learned that Mormonism can be understood from a historical perspective as one of several outgrowths of American Protestantism in the early nineteenth century. The people who followed Joseph Smith and later Brigham Young saw themselves as Christians. They saw their religious documents as “perfecting” errors in the ancient scriptures. Indeed, they regarded Jesus as the primary source of their knowledge. They simply felt that the scripture revealed by Smith added to the ancient canon, and primarily in ways that related to the Christian settlement of the New World (North and South America).

For Jews, this discussion would not have mattered because Judaism teaches a sealed canon. Nothing can be added because of a doctrine which holds that true prophesy has ended. There are 22 books and there will never be more than 22 books. Jonah is sacred scripture. John is not. The Quran–not. The Book of Mormon–not.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not possess a doctrine like this. The Roman Catholics do, and therefore they can say that Mormonism is not Catholic. But can they say it is not Christian? The Protestant revolution overthrew the authoritarian structures of the Orthodox Church. In doing so, they broadened authority. Who now has the authority to determine whether a given group or sect should be considered Christian or not?

If it is possible to believe in Jesus, but also to believe that Revelation did not end with the New Testament, then Mormons are within their religious rights to deem their religion Christian.

For Episcopalians, or Lutherans or Baptists or Methodists or even Unitarians, to deny Mormonism inclusion in the spectrum of Christianity, they will have to demonstrate that the Mormons hold a belief that is inconsistent with Christianity. But without a canon, on what would such a position be based?

That is where I need to leave this question for now. I will be very interested to learn of other opinions out there.

Update on 6/13/2010: The New York Times ran an Op-Ed piece today of interest to this discussion. I’ll provide the link, but in the event that the Times doesn’t allow access or the link fails to work at some point, I will add a summary:

David V. Mason on the definition of Mormonism and Christianity

Mr. Mason is identified as a religious and expert Mormon (a member of the religious hierarchy). He states that in his opinion, Mormons should disassociate themselves from Christianity just as Christians disassociated themselves from Judaism. His arguments relate to the theological nature of Jesus and also discusses elements of the canon.

Of Shins and Sins

A correspondent writes:

It is about the letter(s) shin and sin.  These are usually indicated as the same letter in the Hebrew alphabet. However, they are definitely not interchangeable in a word in the same way a bet and vet are.  They seem to be different letters, but they differ solely because of a dot that didn’t even appear in classical Hebrew.

Can you help me out with my understanding of this?

Dear Reader:

First of all, I must compliment you on the fact that within just a few short phrases you encapsulated a great deal of accurate information. I’m afraid that while I might be able to answer it, I won’t be able to replicate your brevity. Sometimes short questions engender long answers!

As you suggest, a dot can make a difference for the letter בּ in a very different manner than the dot associated with שׁ. And you are again correct that these dots were developed long after the end of the use of Biblical Hebrew as a spoken language.

To the best of our knowledge, both kinds of dot were invented by a somewhat mysterious group of scholars called the Masoretes. These people were engaged for a period of centuries with the task of preserving what they knew of the proper pronunciation of the ancient Hebrew language. We know of them primarily through the manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible they have left for us, the earliest of which dates to about the year 850 or 900 CE.

In the case of 6 letters (of the total of 22), the pronunciation preserved by the Masoretes indicate that the passage of air through the mouth results in a slight softening of the sound. You mention the bet which is the first of these letters. The usual pronunication of the bet is a stop whereby the sound is stopped by the lips. The sound is essentially the same as the b in boy. But if a puff of air should precede the bet, the sound softens into the v of very. If you try making these two sounds yourself, you should notice that even though b and v are distant from each other in the order of the English alphabet, still, they are pronounced with the same speech organ, namely the lips.

The Masoretes indicated this difference in pronunciation with a dot (Hebrew: dagesh). This dot is found in five more letters (about which we will speak in greater detail in a later article).

A critical point of all this is that even though one of these six letters is subject to differences in pronunciation, the meaning of the word never changes. Whether the word is pronounced bayit or vayit, it still means house.

With the shin the Masoretes faced a much different dilemma. Long before their time, in the earliest phases of Biblical Hebrew, there were some words which used the sh sound and others which used the s sound. In some dialects of Biblical Hebrew, the speakers were not able to readily distinguish between these two sounds. In fact, this gave rise to the famous story of the word shiboleth which you can find in Judges 12:5-6.

(This is, by the way, one of the few cases of a Hebrew word migrating into English.)

For those (Biblical era) people who recognized a different pronunciation for the letter shin this became a significant difference because a word with shin would have a different meaning from a word with the pronunciation. Unlike the bet there was a possibility for a difference in meaning. But the Biblical Scribes did not recognize the difference. They used the same letter ש to spell both sounds, much as English sure uses the plain s to render the sound sh.

The Masoretes elected to use a dot to help us with this distinction in a similar fashion to the dagesh. They placed a dot to the right of the letter if it should be pronounced in the more common fashion of sh and they put the dot to the left of the letter if they wanted us to pronounce it as an s. Although it is a dot, it is not a dagesh. If this diacritical mark has a name, perhaps some Reader out there can post a reply letting us know its name.

The problem of the shin has led to some difficult aspects for the dictionary writers. How to cope with the fact that the shin and sin are critical to the meanings of words even though they are the same symbol? What you will find is that some authors of dictionaries will actually separate the two forms as if they are indeed separate letters of the Hebrew alphabet. No less an authority than the Brown-Driver-Briggs Biblical lexicon follows this approach. Other dictionary writers elect to intermix the shins and sins as if there was no difference whatsoever. It is your problem, when using a dictionary, to figure out which strategy the authors have followed.

I hope that throws at least some light on your question, and if not, perhaps you’ll ask a follow-up in the reply box offered below.

On Date Terminology, BCE and CE versus BC and AD

Well, the controversy over how to write dates has now spilled over into popular culture. I recently heard some sort of comedy show in which the stand-up comic made fun of people who use the terminology CE and BCE instead of AD and BC respectively. Since I am among those people, I will make a likely futile effort to explain why I believe that CE and BCE are least among a variety of evils.

I don’t want to belabor what is a now common explanation and story. There are people who feel a religious attachment to any given dating system–for example, Jews who use a chronology dated from the date they regard as the creation of the world, about 6,000 years ago. This is often abbreviated AM which stands for Anno Mundi or the “year of the world.” Another example would be Muslims who use a lunar calendar which begins the year that they believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven. People with these attachments will use the system they prefer and ignore anything the rest of have to say.

For most people today, the dating abbreviation AD and BC are just formulaic. Very few people think about what those letters mean. It is therefore sensible that they wonder what all the fuss is about. But the abbreviations do have meaning. In fact, they stand for “before Christ” and “Anno Domini” which is Latin for “the year of our Lord.” For non-Christians these terms can be difficult to use.

An interesting side note is that AD is correctly used before the year rather than after as you most commonly see it. That’s because it means, “In the year of our Lord 2011,” etc. The fact that you usually see this printed as 2011 AD is just another indication that AD has ceased to have any meaningful connection with Christianity.

Most scholars would probably prefer to use BC and AD just because of their relative ubiquity and acceptance in most modern contexts. As letters, they just have a meaning of “we start counting at an arbitrary year 1″ which happens to be about 2011 years ago as I write this note.” But those who are sensitive to the religious connotations have standardized for a few decades now on a different set of abbreviation: CE and BCE.

CE is supposed to mean “Common Era,” but note that it can be understood as “Christian Era.” Some hoped that this would placate those Christians who might resent having time torn away from them. BCE then means “Before the Common Era.” But it could likewise mean, “Before the Christian Era.”

There is one good academic reason for using BCE and CE. The year 1 which Christians have been using for millennia now does not correspond to any particularly interesting event in Christian history. The date was originally set based on someone’s computation of the birth date of Jesus, but that (medieval) scholar simply got it wrong, as absolutely everyone agrees. Without wasting time on the discussion of Jesus’ birth year, I hope it’s safe to say that if everyone agrees that the year 1 is arbitrary, then it can be used without worrying about whether it has any particular significance for any religion.

Therefore, the year 1 in the BC/AD or BCE/CE system is ideal. Before this tempest in a teapot for better or for worse the Christian dating scheme was by far the most popular dating system in the world. Now that the tempest has blown over, it can be seen as a dating system that has the advantage of having no ties to anything religious.

As far as I know, CE and BCE are used only in books and articles where there is some apprehension that Jews might be offended by BC and (especially) AD. Fortunately, AD is rarely used–if it’s after the year 1 most people just write the year without any qualifier. Therefore, in most cases, Jews who are sensitive to this issue will only flinch at the occasional BC.

As you can tell from the way I’ve written this, I think the whole discussion is silly. But that doesn’t mean I won’t take sensibilities into account. After all, if you are interested in Classical or Biblical Hebrew, chances are you don’t agree with me. You might be a committed Christian who wants to retain AD or you might be a Jew who is offended by it. There’s probably no good way to cut this Gordian knot, but as you’ll see if you keep reading here, for the most part I will use the terminology CE and BCE. After all, if you’re a Christian who likes AD, you just have to read C as “Christian.”

‘f Y’ Cn Rd Ths Y’ Cn Lrn Bblcl Hbrw!

Why should anyone care about this topic?

One of the more difficult aspects of mastering  Semitic literature is the simple fact that most original Semitic writing systems encode only the consonantal sounds. Vowels were an afterthought and often entirely unrecognized in writing. How to explain to beginning Classical Hebrew students that they could overcome this quirk of the written language?

One day I had one of those little epiphanies that often spell the difference between success or failure in communicating a critical concept. For some reason I recalled sitting on a New York City subway car looking at the ads posted opposite. One of those ads always tickled me–it said something to the effect “”F Y’ CN RD THS Y’ CN LRN STNGRPHY!” I worked this into my very first lesson where we introduce the 22 consonants that compose the Hebrew aleph-bet, adjusting the phrase to “‘F Y’ CN RD THS Y’ CN RD BBLCL HBRW!”

Purists can find all sorts of things to fault in this lesson, but I contend that not only is it good enough, it can be an excellent tool for explaining a number of difficult topics in the study of both Hebrew and English orthography.

First a note on what Pete Seeger calls “scholargok.” Why did I use the word orthography rather than the more readily understandable term spelling? The answer is that in a discussion of writing systems I think it is important to realize that there are more clues to reading a word, phrase or sentence than just the consonants and vowels. In English and most modern languages there are a variety of accent marks, punctuation signs and other indicators for the proper pronunciation and interpretation of the words. When we speak, we provide many of these indicators by the way we pronounce the words, where we put the stress (accent) on the word and the pauses between words and phrases. The term orthography encompasses all these signs and indicators. It means “the way we write a language.”

My goal is to clarify rather than confuse, so I’ll make an effort to explain any technical terms (aka scholargok) I use. Please let me know via the communication tools provided at the end of this article if there’s anything you think needed more clarity or better explanation.

The original NorthWest Semitic writing system

Unvoweled, no word separation, bidirectional

The essence of the issues discussed here go back about 3000 or even more years as several civilizations grappled with creating writing systems. Many great civilizations focused their efforts on pictures to communicate, and these famously include Egyptian hieroglyphics and Chinese characters along with lesser known systems from the Hittites and the Americas. Of these, as far as I know, only the Chinese system continues in widespread use.

About the same time that Egyptian hieroglyphics flowered, the ancient civilization of Sumer took a different approach. Scribes there created symbols for sounds rather than pictures and these symbols became the earliest form of sonically (the preferred term is phonetically) representing a language. This is an important issue so it’s worth taking some time to explain. Consider trying to convey the idea of a house. It is pretty easy to make a simple drawing that looks like a house. The advantage of a pictographic symbol is that one doesn’t really need to know the language at all! The ancient Egyptian drew a house and presumably pronounced the word in Egyptian which means house. But an American would say the word house. A Spanish speaking person would look at the symbol and pronounce it casa. A German would say Haus.

In the Sumerian system, the symbols would not look anything like a house. Instead, there would be one symbol for the initial sound of the word and then another symbol for each new syllable.

You might imagine that picture systems could be more universal, but the inventors soon realized that a large portion of human thought cannot easily be rendered into pictures. So they began to add symbols and signs that represented abstract ideas or instructed the reader that the next sign was of a certain nature. This added great complexity to picture systems and while some systems have survived the long term, the overwhelming majority of the world’s peoples have adopted phonetic systems.

The Sumerian system was transmitted to the people who followed them in Babylonia, the Akkadians. The wedge shaped symbols they developed have been given the name cuneiform by modern scholars.

Although cuneiform is easier to learn than hieroglyphics, it is still quite complex. The symbols represented syllables. So there is one sign for “ka” and another for “ko” and another for “kee”–the total runs to about 1000 signs (more or less, depending on the particular cuneiform system being studied).

At some point, perhaps a thousand or so years later than the origin of hieroglyphics and cuneiform, we find the first signs of alphabetic writing in the Near East. The Hebrews were among the first peoples to adopt an alphabet.

The advantage of the alphabet is that it reduces the number of signs that a student has to learn to a manageable few. The ancient Semitic alphabets contain about 22 letters which adequately cover each of the consonantal sounds used in languages such as Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic.

The creators of the alphabetic system did not seem to have any notion that the vowel sounds need to be represented. Those could be deduced from the consonants of a word. As we saw above, especially in context, the signs BBLCL will easily be deciphered to Biblical by most readers adept at English reading and writing.

Indeed, the earliest records of Semitic alphabetic writing shows that initially the scribes had not yet developed a number of concepts that would later be added to the orthography of their language. For example, that a space between words would enhance readability. Or even that the direction of writing was important–we have a number of inscriptions that begin in one direction (say right to left) and then just continue on the next line in the opposite direction!

The Evolution of the Semitic Writing System

Migration from Proto-Hebrew to the Aramaic square forms

One fact that usually surprises my first year students is that the alphabet that they have always associated with Hebrew and the alphabet in use today in Torah scrolls, Bibles and the latest edition of Israel’s newspapers  was not originally a Hebrew alphabet at all!

The original Hebrew alphabet which must have been used to record our Hebrew Bible is found in inscriptions dating as early as the tenth century BCE. Among the most famous of these is the inscription that was found on Hezekiah’s water tunnel which was dug to provide water to the city during the Assyrian siege in the era when the prophet Isaiah was proclaiming his prophesies.

The words of Hezekiah’s engineers are inscribed in the original Hebrew alphabet sometimes (incorrectly) described as “proto Hebrew”. These shapes are related to today’s forms, but the relationship is so distant no one could be expected to read original Hebrew without significant study. Indeed, the first letter (aleph) in original Hebrew looks far more like the English letter A than it does the current form of the aleph!

So if this ancient alphabet of our Biblical ancestors is not the alphabet we use today, then where did the alphabet we use today come from? The answer is very simple: Babylonia.

The alphabetic writing system was used throughout the coastal regions of Israel and Lebanon most famously at the city of Byblos (in modern Lebanon) which provided the name of our scriptures in English: the Bible. The alphabetic system was also used to the north and the east spreading through the areas we call Syria, Iraq and Iran today.

Among the adopters of the alphabet in these lands were many who spoke a Semitic language called Aramaic. Aramaic has some similarity in structure and vocabulary to Hebrew, but it is a clearly distinct language–no Hebrew speaker can understand Aramaic without significant study and vice versa. Although the people of the dominant culture of Babylon in the fifth century BCE spoke Babylonian (an eastern Semitic language related to the ancient Akkadian), Aramaic was so widely spoken that it was acceptable in much of the Babylonian ruled territory.

Speakers of Aramaic had adopted the original Canaanite signs also used by the Hebrews but gradually changed them into the characters that are essentially identical to the alphabetic forms in use for Hebrew to this day. When the Babylonians conquered Israel (circa 586 BCE) and many Jews were either deported or voluntarily migrated east to Babylon, they shed their original Hebrew alphabet and began writing their language using the Aramaic forms. They also, of course, began speaking Aramaic as their primary language. Judging by the later books of the Bible, for the most part they continued writing their stories in Hebrew, but here and there Aramaic began to intrude. One of the latest of our Biblical books, Daniel, was composed in both Hebrew and Aramaic with Aramaic representing about half the book.

In the days of Ezra the Scribe (circa 450 BCE), Jews began returning in large numbers to their homeland. Many of them spoke Aramaic rather than Hebrew and most if not all of them wrote Hebrew using Aramaic letters. That Aramaic alphabet has been retained by Jews for 2500 years. One of the interesting ironies of this is that the Aramaeans went on to further morph their alphabet to the point where it no longer bears any significant resemblance to their original forms. So Hebrew speakers today use Aramaic letters which Aramaic speakers cannot read without being taught. And no one uses the original Hebrew alphabet.

First Stirrings of Vowels in the Ancient Period

One of the most common errors in common circulation is that the Hebrew of the Bible was written entirely without vowels. Over the course of time, Hebrew orthography has consistently moved towards greater degrees of vowel expression. What do I mean by this?

It appears that in the most ancient period–the oldest inscriptions (writing carved into stone monuments)  and ostraka (potsherds which were used as a sort of notepad) words were written almost entirely without vowels. But already by the time of our oldest Biblical literature, scribes had begun to use some of the 22 consonants for additional duty–to represent vowel sounds as well as consonants.

The four consonants which developed into vowel signs are the aleph, heh, vav (originally waw) and yod (א ה ו י). Many people call this group of letters “ah-hoo-ee” after a common way to pronounce the letters, but I’m sure there are other candidates. The important point is that while originally the yod, for example, was pronounced “y” as in yellow, the Scribes noticed that in some words the pronunciation morphed to  “ee” and they began to use it that way even if the word did not originally have a yod.

Grammarians sometimes refer to these four letters as the matres lectionis. This is a Latin term which means “the mothers of pronunciation.” Although the term is perhaps a little obscure for beginning students, the intent is:  these letters are critical for the successful pronunciation of a word.

The easiest way for most speakers of English to understand this is to compare a similar phenomenon in our own language. Think about that letter “y” in English. When it is found at the beginning of a word or a syllable, it has the consonantal sound of the “y”. For example, as we just saw above, yellow. Also: you. How about Yo-Yo? But when the “y” is found at the end of a word, it is rarely pronounced as a consonant. Think about the word very. You could write it as “veree” and pronounce it correctly. This explains why many American school kids learn a little ditty that goes something like “The vowels are a, e, I, o, u and sometimes y.”

Another Hebrew letter with similar development to an English vowel sign is the vav. In Biblical times (and considerably afterward depending on the location of the speaker) this consonant was actually pronounced like the English letter “w”. And just like the w it sometimes morphs into a vowel. For example, the w is a consonant in water. It is a consonant in winter. But what is its function in below? Or yellow? Most English teachers try to simplify things by telling us that the w in these words is “silent.” But that’s not really the case. The truth is that the w is part of the vowel combination ow. As is so often the case in English, there isn’t even a single pronunciation for this combination. While it is like the o in hole for below and yellow, notice that it has a very different sound in the words now or how.

Something similar happened with the Biblical Hebrew pronunciation of the vav (or more accurately, the waw, pronounced like the English word “Wow!”). The correct pronunciation of the ubiquitous word in Hebrew that translates as “and” is w’. The apostrophe means just a slight little slurred e sound. For example, the Biblical Hebrew word וְשָׁנִֽים should be pronounced w’shanim. In modern Hebrew, the waw has morphed to vav and this word is pronounced v’shanim. But the important point is that the symbol is a consonant in these examples, not a vowel.

Just above we saw that in English we often find the w in combination with a vowel  so that you might say that the w can sometimes be a good marker for the sounds o as in hole and u as in roof. I realize that this can be a difficult concept to grasp, so let me try one more angle. Think about the following series of words: below, snow, crow, low. In every case you could say that the w is silent. But what if English never invented the sign o? These words might be written like this: : belw, snw, crw, lw. Then, you could be taught as part of your English reading class “When a word ends in w the w is pronounced” (and the teacher would then say the vowel o out loud). See how the consonant w could evolve into the vowel o? This is exactly what happened in Hebrew. Sometimes the vav retains its consonantal pronunciation (which was originally w as in water but is now v as in very). But more often than not, it will be read by the Hebrew speaker as either o as in hole or u as in rule.

And so it was that these four “ah-hoo-ee” letters began to be used by scribes to spell out the vowels of words where no vowel had been used before. Let’s look at a concrete example of this!

In Genesis 7:21 we find the Hebrew participle הָֽרֹמֵ֣שׂ pronounced ha-ro-meis. This word means “crawls” and is part of the phrase “every flesh (kind of animal) that crawls on the earth.” Notice that the vowel “o” is not reflected in the consonants–we’ll talk about the Masoretic diacritical signs soon, but if you did not know these vowel pointers, you would have to guess at the vowel. This is clearly the way that Biblical Hebrew was conventionally spelled in its earliest period. But in Genesis 1:30, we find the very same word written as רוֹמֵ֣שׂ. It is pronounced exactly the same, but in this case we have the vowel marker waw (the second letter in the word reading from right to left).

The point is that very early in the history of the Hebrew language, scribes recognized that readers could use some help with vowels, and they developed systems to hint at those vowels. Notice that even in the same book, and not very far from one another, a given word could be spelled both ways, with or without the vowel letter helper.

This does raise an important issue for Jewish theology, by the way. As you can see, Biblical spelling not only could be, but often was, flexible and therefore inconsistent. This created problems for later scribes who were trying to preserve the text with fidelity and also religious teachers who tried to base parts of their theology either on spelling points or numerical equivalents of the letters.

As time went on, scribes increased their reliance on these vowel letters so that it became normal for any word with the vowel “ee” to be written with a yod regardless of whether that was the more traditional spelling–and this often did violence to the etymology of the word. In Modern Hebrew, in addition to the yod and waw (vav), the aleph and heh and many punctuation signs are used to aid the reader in pronouncing the written text.

Today, grammarians refer to the more laconic Biblical style of writing as k’tiv haser which means “writing that lacks (vowels).” Spelling that includes a generous sprinkling of the vowel letters (a-hoo-ee) is called k’tiv malei which means “full writing.” From our study here you should understand that to truly see k’tiv haser you would need to examine extra-Biblical ancient writing. Although Biblical Hebrew is far less “full” than later Hebrew, there will likely be examples of vowel-letters in just about any verse taken from any Biblical source over the 1000 year history of Biblical writing.

Modern Hebrew did not stop with extending the use of the matres lectionis. Most books and newspapers in Israel feature a variety of diacritical marks that help readers figure out how to pronounce words–especially those of non-Hebrew origin. For example you might see the symbol gimel (always a hard “g” in Modern Hebrew) spelled like this:  ‘ג. To the Modern Hebrew reader, this helps to indicate that the word should be pronounced with the soft “g”–one example from my time in Israel struggling to read the newspaper should suffice: קיסינג’ר indicated (Secretary of State Henry) Kissinger. Notice that both of the letters “I” are written with yods in addition to the apostrophe that tells you to pronounce the “g” as in “giraffe.”

To summarize: In the most ancient period of Hebrew, scribes wrote with a purely consonantal spelling system. Vowels were rarely, if ever, indicated. In the early Biblical period, scribes began to use a few letters that originally had purely consonantal pronunciation to spell out the vowels in a word. This practice became increasingly popular. In the period of Middle Hebrew (the long period from the close of Biblical Hebrew to the dawn of the modern language), writers sprinkled the a-hoo-ee letters more and more liberally through their writings. Modern Hebrew not only uses this convention, but adds other symbols drawn from European languages to indicate pronunciation, especially in loan words and foreign names.

The Masoretes: Perfecting vocalization over many centuries

The study of the history of Biblical manuscripts is hobbled by the absence of evidence over a period of about a thousand years. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), which contained fragments of every Old Testament book except Esther, we have an excellent view of  how at least one (and probably several) group of scribes was writing and preserving the Biblical text. Most of the texts closely resemble either the form of the Bible we have preserved in the Hebrew (Masoretic) tradition, or the version which was preserved in the Greek translation of the Bible (Septuagint, often abbreviated as LXX). Of course we can only settle issues of spelling with the Hebrew text, so we have to limit this particular discussion to those passages which closely parallel our Hebrew text (usually referred to as the Masoretic text for reasons I will provide below).

When we next see a Hebrew manuscript of the Bible, about a thousand years have elapsed. At some point in the early middle ages, Hebrew scribes began writing the text in books instead of scrolls. We assume that the text of many Hebrew books (especially the first five books called the Torah and several smaller books that were used liturgically)  continued to be written in the form of scrolls, but none of these has survived–the oldest scrolls we have today are centuries more recent than the oldest codices. The oldest Torah scroll is believed to date from about 1400 CE. Bibles found in book form are termed by scholars codices (singular: codex). The oldest of the Biblical codices date to around the tenth century CE (meaning, between 900 and 1000 CE). This means that the oldest books (codices) of the Torah predate the oldest scroll by over 500 years!

At Least Three Complete Systems

Students today learn Hebrew via a unified standard of pronunciation symbols. I’ll explain the nature of these symbols shortly, but for now I want to stress that in the early Middle Ages we know of three different systems of vocalization (the term we apply to the pronunciation symbols that help us sound out or vocalize the words).

The system we use today, which consists of signs placed above, below and even in the middle of the pre-existing consonantal text  is called the Tiberian system and was widely adopted by Jews in the Land of Israel and in the West. In the East, the Babylonian Jews seem to have preferred a system in which vowel signs were written exclusively above the pre-existing consonants.

Finally, a third system is represented primarily by a few fragments found in the Cairo Geniza. We know very little about this system, but some scholars refer to it as the Palestinian vocalization system.

The reason it is important to note that these symbols were added to the pre-existing text is because the text itself was regarded as sacred. After the Hebrew Bible went through a process of canonization, that is, setting a standard form for the text, no additional letters could be inserted into that text or removed from it. These three systems all allowed readers to clearly distinguish the canonical text from the pronunciation marks.

The Masoretes expand on the earlier vocalization system

We term the people who lavished their time on these system the Masoretes. The name comes from the Hebrew word masar which means to transmit. The Masoretes are those people who were committed to the accurate transmission of the Hebrew Bible. They not only developed the vowel signs, but also most of the punctuation and chanting (musical) symbols. When a person learns the complete set of Masoretic symbols, they have the keys to the accurate pronunciation of the word, the location of the stress, and even the musical rendition of the word.

This does not mean that everyone now pronounces all the words in every Biblical book the same way. Note that I mentioned that there were three complete systems in circulation at one time. It is clear from looking at texts in these three systems that the words were being pronounced and chanted a little differently in each system. In addition, there were regional differences of pronunciation throughout Jewish history.

The mere fact that the written symbols might not have agreed with the way that a given region pronounced their texts does not mean that people were inclined to change their traditional pronunciations. For example, the Tiberian Masoretes clearly pronounced the vowel qamatz (the vowel under the aleph): אָ differently from the patah: אַ –otherwise, why write them differently? But in Israel today, most people pronounce both symbols the same: a as in father. This is the tradition of Spanish Jewish population and seems to be consistent with the symbols in the Babylonian system.

The Jews we call Ashkenazim (Jews of Eastern European descent) clearly distinguish the two sounds. And interestingly enough, the Yemeni Jews–the population among the most distant from Ashkenaz–agree with them. So whatever the signs originally meant, we can no longer be certain that we are pronouncing the words in the ways that a specific group of Masoretes may have intended.

Modern Hebrew: fully vocalized without Masoretic signs

But we are far from finished with the development of the Hebrew written language! The diacritical signs that we have been discussing are used today in Bibles, poetry and dictionaries but not in newspapers, novels, and general writing. But Modern Hebrew is hardly written in k’tiv haser (the form of writing we discussed above in which there is little or no indication of vowel sounds).

I hope you haven’t forgotten the matres lectionis. These “mothers of pronunciation” (also called the a-hoo-ee letters) were introduced already by Biblical scribes to help readers narrow down the choices conceivable for a given set of letters. Modern Hebrew typesetters simply expanded on a practice already common in the Classical era. They inserted the letter yod for almost every ee sound, and the letter vav for either the vowels o or u.

Modern typesetters can also use a variety of symbols to help readers with sounds that are not used in Modern Hebrew. For example, the g of George can be written in an Israeli newspaper: ‘ג. The small stroke after the gimel tells the reader that this is not the Hebrew hard g sound.

So this makes it all a lot easier for a student to figure out a mysterious word like “Secretary of State Henry Kissinger” which becomes קיסינג’ר — still not a walk in the park for a beginner, but far easier to determine than קסנגר.

The critical point to understand here is that Modern Hebrew is not “unvocalized” (written without vowels). It is not as easy to pronounce as many highly phonetic alphabets (Greek, Latin, Spanish and most Romance derivatives), but it quite a bit easier to learn than–just for example–English. That is the subject of the next language history lesson.

Meanwhile, Back in the West

The Greeks steal the alphabet

There is ample evidence of extended commerce among the lands of the Eastern Mediterranean. Ships and shipwrecks, pottery, and even written sources going back before the year 1000 BCE provide this attestation. The trade included Greece, Anatolia (Turkey), Lebanon, Phoenicia, Philistia, Cyprus, Rhodes and Egypt. Egypt and a few other regions already had long-standing writing systems which their professional scribes would have been loath to relinquish. But when the sea peoples plied their trade, they had the opportunity to judge what might be easier to learn: hieroglyphics (Egyptian and Hittite) or syllabaries (the coastal towns from Lebanon to the Sinai), it probably dawned on them rather quickly that syllabaries were easier to learn.

Some of the Greeks actually had their own writing systems which predated the Classical period. These are known as Linear A and B. Scholars, perhaps most famously Cyrus Gordon, have wrestled with interpreting these systems for decades and mostly to little effect. Hieroglyphics and other pictographic systems are very difficult even if they eventually evolve into standardized or more limited character systems. Of course a couple billion Chinese still employ a modified pictographic system, so we can’t claim that learning such systems is impossible. But despite this fact of modern linguistic life, I believe that even most Chinese speakers would concede that learning to write the Latin alphabet is much easier for adult learners than any of the Chinese systems.

Whatever the reasons, it is clear that by the mid-sixth century BCE the Greeks had borrowed and with some modification, promulgated the syllabary they found in widespread use in Canaanite lands (especially the Phoenicians). The syllabary they borrowed seems to be identical to the one in use by the Hebrews prior to their adoption of the Aramaic-style alphabet.

The Greeks came up with an improvement on the Canaanite system. It appears that it was the Greeks who developed the idea of representing vowels as well as consonants–perhaps all they did was extrapolate from ideas that were already permeating Hebrew. As we have seen, at a relatively early time the Hebrew scribes were using the consonant yod to indicate the “ee” vowel along with the older consonantal value of the y in yellow. The Greeks called the letter iota and used it freely as the vowel i. In one of those historical oddities, the Spanish later imported the letter y into their alphabet and Spanish schoolchildren are taught that this is y griega–the Greek Y!

The Greeks either didn’t understand or had no use for the very first letter of the Canaanite alphabet (at this point we can start calling it an alphabet rather than syllabary because, as we’ve pointed out, by this time the Hebrews and others were already using some of the letters for vowels as well as consonants). So they turned the Canaanite letter aleph into their alpha and it became the sign we know today as an A. (Note: purists will point out that the Greek name alpha was not a Greek name but rather the name of letter as they heard it from the scribes of whatever Semitic language became their model–perhaps Aramaic.)

Greek does not have sounds like the Semitic rasped H (het) or the deep laryngeal letter `ayin, so they turned those signs into their vowels E and O respectively. In addition, the Greeks did not have the w sound of window so they turned the waw into the vowel u. It is interesting that at some time (probably in the early Middle Ages), part of the Jewish population also lost the ancient pronunciation of the waw. These Jews converted the sound into the v of very. The original w sound was retained in Hebrew wherever Jews spoke Arabic as their first language.

Phonetic orthography: Greek, Latin, Spanish; even German and French

So the Greeks adopted the Semitic syllabary and enhanced it by changing or adding symbols that instructed readers how to pronounce vowels as well as consonants. In that sense, the Greek writing system became perhaps our earliest example of a true alphabet. The difference between an alphabet and a syllabary is exactly this notion of representing vowels as well as consonants.

The Romans also adopted the alphabet at a very early time, almost certainly from the Greeks. But it is also fun to speculate about  their extensive commercial relations with Carthage, a major African trading city settled by the Phoenicians who (of course) used their Canaanite syllabary which was essentially identical to the Hebrew and Aramaic systems. Like the Greeks (or more probably borrowed from the Greeks) they inserted several vowel letters into their Latin alphabet. And like Greek, Latin has a highly predictable, phonetic pronunciation. The beginning student of either Latin or Greek has very little difficulty mastering the alphabets of those languages.

This does not mean, by the way, that there is universal acceptance of a single pronunciation for either Latin or Greek words. Dialectical pronunciation differences do  occur in both languages. In addition, modern students of Latin or Greek learn distinct pronunciations based on different scholastic traditions. The German student learns a different pronunciation of the Latin alphabet than does the American because of tradition, but in each case the pronunciation is consistent and locked into the alphabet. The American or German student reads and pronounces a Latin word each to his own tradition, but each is certain that they are pronouncing the word “correctly.”

Other languages derived from Latin (often termed the Romance languages) may have altered the pronunciation of consonants to conform to their specific needs but retained the idea of a phonetic pronunciation. For example, Spanish and Italian are relatively easy for learners to master and even French, which departs more than others from the Latin pronunciation demonstrates a consistent approach to the written language and is therefore not very difficult for someone to learn if they understand any of the other alphabetic writing systems.

English, Not So Much

Likewise German. Although not considered among the Romance languages and with a vocabulary and set of consonants that departs in a major way from the Romance languages, German nevertheless displays a fairly consistent approach to their alphabet (also borrowed from the Romans) and beginning students usually master German reading at a fairly early stage of any instructional program.

But English is another story.

Pronunciation in English

At first it may seem strange to be told that in Hebrew the vowel sounds are either haphazardly written (Classical period) or open to some interpretation (Modern period). If your native language is Latin or Spanish you could be forgiven for feeling that this is absurd–after all, these languages are very easy to sound out with minimal instruction. But we should be very familiar with this problem if we are native readers and speakers of English since English behaves so much like Hebrew in this regard.

Before I explain this in detail, I should note that the examples that follow presume a pronunciation using a standard American dialect. This is the pronunciation widely found on the US west coast and the upper Midwest and favored by teachers of American English and TV news readers –probably the most widely recognized English pronunciation, at least in America. If you hale from London (England) or Sydney (Australia) or even Boston or New York City within America, you might have to work a little harder to understand these examples, but I think they’ll make sense regardless of your particular accent.

As most of us have learned in elementary school, English has five vowel letters plus one consonant often used as a vowel: a, e, i, o, u and sometimes y. Each of the five main vowels occurs in what are often termed “long” and “short” sounds, which means that effectively we start with ten vowels, although only five symbols–so from the get-go we have to figure out which one of two possible sounds a given letter intends. Since my goal here is not to teach English I’m not going to illustrate every vowel, but here are a couple of examples.

The first vowel letter is a. It can be short as in hat or long as in hate.

The second vowel letter is e. It can be short as in bed, or long as the first e in cede. And so on for each.

Just when the new idea of choosing between two utterly different sounds is settling in, the student new to English will discover that it is all a sham. Let’s keep going with our example of that seemingly simple vowel a. As noted just above, a has a normal “short” (whatever that really means) sound in words like cat, hat, rat, slap.

You might imagine that this is the same sound as the word want. But you’d be wrong. If you don’t believe me, try rhyming want with any of the other words I’ve cited. Now say the word can’t out loud. That doesn’t sound like either want or hat! Can’t is not only different, it’s very common so you can’t (forgive me) avoid learning it. And lest you think that can’t is just some sort of weird “exception”, think again: rant all you like, this a is not that unusual. Also, stand, command, oh–and that word that started this paragraph: sham.

But wait, there’s more! Here’s another common word a student new to English can hardly avoid: many. Guess what–this word’s a is closer to the e in bed than it is the a of hat or want or can’t.

Okay, so the short a is hard to describe. What about other vowel letters?

Let’s take a look at the vowel letter I. It can be short, as in the words rid, skid, discipline. It can be long as in the words ride, slide, and disciple. But that short I doesn’t always sound the same. How about the first I in the word liaison? Okay, some of my English teaching friends will cry foul here because liaison is, after all a word borrowed from French. Okay, how about the first I in pronunciation? I won’t comment on the second I because that one is part of a combination of vowels the discussion of which would take us even farther afield.

But as long as I’ve mentioned vowel combinations, let me conclude with another example of the difficulties of English pronunciation. Consider the combination ei in the word receipt. Just how do we reconcile that with the same vowel letter combination in the word freight?

There are whys and wherefores to explain all of these issues. English is a language which has, first of all, developed  not only in the ways that a language would develop if the people speaking it were relatively isolated, but it was also heavily influenced by invaders. At its core, English is one of the Teutonic or Germanic languages. That explains its core vocabulary and its strong and weak verb conjugations.

But England was invaded by Rome in the first century BCE. The long Roman domination was eventually weakened, but in the year 1066 the Norman Conquest assured a French speaking upper class for centuries to come. These two facts explain the injection of an enormous number of Romance language words into English. But that doesn’t explain why English spelling is so peculiar. After all, we could just spell English phonetically! Or we could add a few extra signs into the language to clarify pronunciation–that is essentially what we’ve done in our dictionaries to show people the proper pronunciation of each dictionary entry.

There are, in my opinion, two essential facts in control here. First, those who have created our English writing traditions have chosen more often than not to retain archaic spellings. An excellent example of this is the gh in night. Many readers here will know (the k in know, by the way is another example of this phenomenon) that this consonant combination harks back to our Teutonic origins when we pronounced the word not so differently from the German word nacht. That’s the soft guttural sound, not the other English ch of say, chess or even Chicago.

The second fact is that dictionaries have made a difference. Dictionaries record the spelling of words and when literate people learn to rely on dictionaries, they tend to propagate the spellings listed there no matter how far the pronunciation of a word may have strayed from its origin. The English were among the first compilers of dictionaries, and the printing press made dictionaries widely available. In some sense then, our spelling has become frozen to the forms of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Colloquialisms and advertising slogans can have an effect (most of us recognize lite for light just fine, but it is interesting that in literate writing the vast majority adhere to light even though lite might make more sense).

Now that I have taken you on a journey which may have convinced you that English is simply impossible to pronounce based on its spelling, let me take it down a notch. The fact is that while spelling may be a horrible chore in English, the vast majority of us manage to read our words out loud from these atrocious spellings with little or no  effort. And English is widely and successfully taught all over the world.  How do people cope? Is it just brute, rote, memorization?

No, actually it’s not that bad at all!

As you saw, the letter a can be problematic. I demonstrated the variety of vowel sounds (and it probably wasn’t complete) that a single letter a could represent. But so what? Most of the time a short a is pronounced exactly the way you would expect–like the a in hat. Rat, sat, cat, lap, trap. Most of the time, the long a is pronounced like the a in cake: lake, take, make, rate. Now one of those exceptions might be sale–the  a is a bit different in the standard American dialect than, say, trade. But it’s close enough that if you don’t quite make the right a sound, no one would have any trouble understanding you.

I’m not an English orthographer so I can’t say whether the case of variation of sounds represented by the letter a is the worst case, but my sense is that It is. The other four vowels all have their peculiarities, but most of us have little or no trouble reading them correctly out loud. And even the letter a has its limitations. A letter a, for example, would never be pronounced I as in ride. Or o as in hole. And this brings me to the critical point.

Even though English spelling is far from phonetic, each of the vowel letters narrows the choices. An I will usually be either short as in spit, or long as in spite. But it will never be confused with the o in hole or the u of rule. Once you know that a word is spelled with I you can narrow the choices down to a small enough set of choices that, provided you have a reasonable command of English vocabulary, you are going to find the correct pronunciation without too much sweat.

And that’s why I contend that English is actually just like Hebrew!

Let’s review the history of Hebrew spelling we began this discussion with. Originally, Hebrew was written with signs for consonants alone, no vowels. While still in the Biblical era, this system slowly evolved to include vowels. A yod would often indicate the vowel sound “ee”. The vav (originally waw) would be used for either o as in hole or u as in rule. The letter heh, especially at the end of a word, was used to indicate the sound a as in father (Israeli and most Spanish and Arabic Jewish heritage populations, the Eastern European Jews pronounced this vowel aw as in craw).

The first letter of the alphabet, the aleph could represent many vowels, but its presence made sure that the reader knew that there was a vowel present at that point. Each of these letters also had their original consonantal role to play, but a reader and speaker of Hebrew could easily learn to differentiate these sounds much as we figure out the story in our whacky world of English spelling.

So at last we get back to the ditty at the beginning of our story. ‘f y’ cn rd ths, y’ cn lrn bblicl hbrw!

Now, believe it or not, even though this little ditty was crafted for your amusement, there are actually some serious points to be made here.

First, take a look at the spelling of the first word: ‘f. Notice that if we were sticking strictly to consonants, we would spell the word: f. But even in the earliest recorded inscriptions of Hebrew, a word which sounded like if would not have been written with a single consonant. As we understand through the full English spelling, there is a sound before the consonant f. In Hebrew, this would have been indicated by preceding the f with a sign which is actually the very first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the aleph which of course became the alpha of the Greeks (and the A of the Romans).

Explaining the true function of the aleph would take us too far afield for this essay, but rest assured I will explain it fully in another place. The important point for now is that the aleph allows us to know that this word does not start with f but rather has some sort of sound preceding it. So, in my ditty, I wrote the aleph using a stroke:’. For most English speakers, this is all the hint you need to figure out that the word is if.

So the ditty expressed as above is actually a pretty good approximation of the earliest and most vowel free period of Hebrew! As I have explained here, this is not how most of Biblical Hebrew is written. Already in the Biblical Hebrew period, scribes began to indicate vowels using the a-hoo-ee system. Suppose  you knew that the English letter combination oo should be pronounced u as in roof. One more. Let’s agree that the sign ee will be pronounced ee as in teeth. Even though we’re now going to insert some letters, this would still be perfectly acceptable as proximate to Biblical Hebrew:

‘f yoo cn reed ths, yoo cn reed bblcl heebroo!

Looks a little funny, but I’m guessing that even those among us who couldn’t figure out the ditty at first would be able to now.  Modern Hebrew goes even farther, using vowel letters where no Biblical scribe would have bothered and adding punctuation  and other diacritical marks. For example, the g of giraffe has no modern Hebrew equivalent. So the modern Hebrew typesetter compensates for this by writing the Hebrew equivalent of a g with a an apostrophe. The apostrophe tells the modern reader to use the soft g rather than the hard g pronunciation: ‘ג.

‘f yoo cn cope wth ths, yoo cn mn’g too lrn ‘nythng yoo st yoor mind too doo!

‘Nuf said, go study.

I want to acknowledge and thank Annette Weinshank for her careful and multiple readings of this article resulting in dozens of corrections and improvements. Thanks also to Steve Rayburn for comments and critique.

©Jacob Love 2011

In this way lies madness…

I began writing my first textbook of Classical Hebrew around 1980. At that time text processing was just beginning to impinge on my consciousness. As in many other things, I owed my first inklings of what might be in the future to Frank Olken who tutored me in so many ways. Frank assured me that soon I’d be able to do word processing not only in English, but also in Hebrew. Alas, although Frank was a visionary, I was working in the trenches.

So for me, the height of technical sophistication was the “ball” of the IBM Selectric typewriter. And the height of sophistication in graphics was the Pilot fine point pen.

Now, there are probably already people reading this blog who are vague on what I might mean by the IBM Selectric Typewriter. In fact, it is increasingly the case that people don’t even know what a typewriter is. So for the benefit of these folks, let me elaborate just a bit. A typewriter is a mechanical device for transferring letters (“type”) to paper. Most typewriters functioned by having a set of letters at the end of levers which would be activated by a key to strike an ink ribbon which then imprinted the paper. From relatively early times it was possible to purchase typewriters manufactured for the Israeli market that could type in Hebrew.

The great advance of the IBM Selectric was to allow the user to print in variable typefaces. This was accomplished by putting the letters on a spherical removable surface. If  I remember correctly, IBM referred to these things as “elements” but they inevitably became  referred to as balls. Just about the time that I was seeking some method to draft my book, IBM provided not one but two balls for the Israeli Hebrew market. The significance of stating that these were produced for the Israeli market is that only the 22 Hebrew consonants (those used in Modern Hebrew) were represented. The vowel points and other punctuation signs familiar to students of the Classical language were not included.

If you purchased a typewriter in Israel, you could get one that typed right to left. An Israeli IBM Selectric could then use either of the new “balls” to produce Hebrew text. But these machines could not type effectively in a European (left to right) language.

As I worked through the problems of creating text in both English and Hebrew. I realized first that it was more important for me to have effective left to right editing capability even if I was concerned with a right to left language. The reason for this is that since I was communicating with English speakers, all my explanatory materials and notes would be in English, and as much Hebrew as there might be, all of it would have to be translated and some transliterated into English. So I didn’t have much choice but to consider this book to be primarily in English but with significant Hebrew interpolation.

So there was no need for an Israeli typewriter. I used an American typewriter and typed in English until I needed to insert some Hebrew. At that point, I would remove the English ball and snap in the Hebrew ball (an action which eventually I could  accomplish in just a second or two). But then I had to press the space bar or tab key to create enough space for the Hebrew. Finally, I would have to type the Hebrew letters. The right to left motion was simulated by pressing the backspace key twice after printing each letter. The keyboard was in English, so I had to memorize the locations of the Hebrew letters.

Students of Hebrew, especially the classical language, usually learn what is called the vocalized version of the text. This is a version that includes special signs that tell the student how to pronounce the vowels in the text. (Although a bit of an oversimplification, for the purposes of this discussion, you can think of the regular Hebrew language as one that represents only the consonants, not the vowels.)

These vowels are indicated by dots and lines that are drawn above, in the middle of and below the consonants. And the IBM Selectric ball did not include these signs. That’s where the Pilot Fine Point pen came into play. With the Pilot, I could draw in the vowels in a way that student had no trouble reading the consonant/vowel point combinations.

So the process for producing a page was: compose and write the English, insert the Hebrew consonants, then pull the page out of the typewriter and hand ink the vowels. Correction fluid was essential.

All that is the background for my current dilemma. Whatever admiration you might have for my battle to produce useful text in the technological backwaters of 1980, you would probably think “So with modern multilingual word processors, advances such as Unicode, etc you should be able to easily recreate your text now. Why is this taking so long?”

It started with Chapter 1, the Hebrew Aleph-Bet. Using a Hebrew-English word processing package (in this case DavkaWriter, www.davka.com), I began writing the text explaining how to read and pronounce each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In my first book, I created a list for learning how to write the letters by drawing each letter as a large graphic, then adding small arrows and numbers (as in, step 1, step 2, etc) to show the student how to draw each letter.

DavkaWriter has no such capability (for now), so I had to learn how to use a product such as Microsoft Paint or Adobe Illustrator to accomplish the same sort of thing. Then there was the question of the best way to display this on a Web page.

Within a short period of time, I began to think that rather than having a static Web page showing the letters, I should really have some sort of animation that would replicate how I really teach the alphabet to students–namely, drawing each character stroke by stroke. As many of you will say, but that should be easy–use an animated GIF or use Flash!

Of course, that results in buying an 800 page book called something like “Learn Flash in 2500 Easy Lessons”. Which leads to learning Perl, PHP, and a few other ancillary technologies. So, about 5 years after writing my first pages for the new version of my Learn Classical Hebrew textbook, I’m still figuring it out.

Relating these things to my good friend Ken Cohen, he looked at me with the twinkle he always has in his eye and said “In this way lies madness.”

The Pronoun הִוא in Classical Hebrew

I should start by acknowledging that those of you who have heard about this phenomenon will be disappointed with the answer I will provide, or lack thereof. In the Torah (and this phenomenon seems to occur only in the Torah) in all but 5 places, the pronoun which הִוא means she is spelled with a vav (purists will prefer the representation waw, ו) rather than a yod (י, הִיא) which is the way it is spelled those 5 times and everywhere else in the Bible and after the Bible.

In an effort to pronounce what they see, I have occasionally heard people say “heeve” when they come across the word in the Torah. We know from our Masoretic tradition that this is incorrect. It should be pronounced “hee” just as if it were spelled the more usual way (at least outside the Torah).

It looks as if the author(s) of the Torah pronounced the word “hoo” regardless of whether the pronoun referred to “he” or “she” (I’m not claiming that this is how they actually pronounced the word, only that it was spelled that way.)  I am not aware of any tradition that suggests we should pronounce it “hoo” when it refers to “she.”

How do I know that the Masoretic tradition demands the pronunciation “hee”? Well, that’s what the vowel point is that is included in all the Masoretic manuscripts. The Masoretes never change a consonant in the text (although they may add variants), but they use the vowel pointing system to teach us how they believe the word should be pronounced.

One more pronunciation note to those who might be tempted to pronounce this word “heev”. Originally (and by originally I mean in all periods of classical Hebrew) the vav was pronounced “w”–therefore scholars occasionally refer to the letter as “waw” rather than the “vav” of later Hebrew. A trailing “w” will always have a faint pronunciation because of the phonetics of the letter. So at best we are speaking of the difference between “hoow” and “heew”.

Getting back to the accepted traditional pronunciation (“hee” rather than “hoo”), this is a particular case of the more general phenomeon of Q’ri and K’tiv. The Q’ri (what should be read out loud) is “hee”, the K’tiv (what is written) is “hoo”. At a future time I hope to return in greater detail to a discussion of the Q’ri-K’tiv issue.

Ultimately most Hebrew students want to know “Why this is?”  Why should “hee” be written “hoo” and why do we see this phenomenon only in the Torah. That is the disappointment I mentioned at the beginning of this article. No one knows. At least I have never heard a theory that satisfactorily explains this. If you have, perhaps you’ll comment here.