Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar

As Edited And Enlarged By The Late
E. Kautzsch Professor Of Theology
In The University Of Halle
Second English Edition
Revised In Accordance With
The Twenty-Eighth German
Edition (1909) By
A. E. Cowley

With A Facsimile Of The Siloam Inscription
By J. Euting, And A Table Of Alphabets
By M. Lidzbarski Clarendon Press. Oxford

 

Oxford University Press, Walton Street, Oxford OX2 6DP
Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras
Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi
Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and
associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press

Published in the United States by Oxford University Press, New York
ISBN 0–19-815406–2 Second English edition 1910
Reprinted from corrected sheets of the second edition
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
the prior permission of Oxford University Press
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

1 The first edition appeared at Halle in 1813 (202 pp. small 8vo); twelve more editions were published by W. Gesenius himself, the fourteenth to the twenty first (1845–1872) by E. RoÎdiger, the twenty-second to the twenty eighth (1878–1910) by E. Kautzsch. The first abridged edition appeared in 1896, the second at the same time as the present (twenty-eighth) large edition. The first edition of the ‘UÏbungsbuch'(Exercises) to Gesenius-Kautzsch's Hebrew Grammar appeared in 1881, the sixth in 1908.

 

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE

THE translation of the twenty-sixth German edition of this grammar, originally prepared by the Rev. G. W. Collins and revised by me, was published in 1898. Since that date a twenty-seventh German edition has appeared; and Prof. Kautzsch was already engaged on a twenty-eighth in 1908 when the English translation was becoming exhausted. He sent me the sheets as they were printed off, and I began revising the former translation in order to produce it as soon as possible after the completion of the German. The whole of the English has been carefully compared with the; new edition, and, it is hoped, improved in many points, while Prof. Kautzsch's own corrections and additions have of course been incorporated. As before, the plan and arrangement of the original have been strictly followed, so that the references for sections and paragraphs correspond exactly in German and English. Dr. Driver has again most generously given up time, in the midst of other engagements, to reading the sheets, and has made numerous suggestions. To him also are chiefly due the enlargement of the index of subjects, some expansions in the new index of Hebrew words, and some additions to the index of passages, whereby we hope to have made the book more serviceable to students. I have also to thank my young friend, Mr. Godfrey R. Driver, of Winchester College, for some welcome help in correcting proofs of the Hebrew index and the index of passages. ba xmXy ~kx !b. any corrections have been sent to me by scholars who have used tho former English edition, especially the Rev. W. E. Blomfield, the Rev. S. Holmes, Mr. P. Wilson, Prof. Witton Davies, Mr. G. H. Skipwith, and an unknown correspondent at West Croydon. These, as well as suggestions in reviews, have all been considered, and where possible, utilized. I am also much indebted to the Press-readers for the great care which they have bestowed on the work.

Finally, I must pay an affectionate tribute to the memory of Prof. Kautzsch, who died in the spring of this year, shortly after finishing the last sheets of the twenty-eighth edition. For more than thirty years he was indefatigable in improving the successive editions of the Grammar. The German translation of the Old Testament first published by him in 1894, with the co-operation of other scholars, under the title Die Heilige Schrift des A Ts, and now (1910) in the third and much enlarged edition, is a valuable work which has been widely appreciated: the Apocryphen und Pseudepigraphen des A Ts, edited by him in 1900, is another important work: besides which he published his Grammatik des Biblisch-AramaÎischen in 1884, two useful brochures Bibelwissenschaft und Religionsunterricht in 1900, and Die bleibende Bedeutung des A Ts in 1903, six popular lectures on Die Poesie und die poetischen BuÎcher des A Ts in 1902, his article ÔReligion of Israel213; in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, v. (1904), pp. 612–734, not to mention minor publications. His death is a serious loss to Biblical scholarship, while to me and to many others it is the loss of a most kindly friend, remarkable alike for his simple piety and his enthusiasm for learning.

A.C.

MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD,Sept. 1910.

 

FROM THE GERMAN PREFACE

THE present (twenty-eighth) edition of this Grammar,1 like the former ones, takes account as far as possible of all important new publications on the subject, especially J. Barth's Sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Semitischen, pt. i, Lpz. 1907; the important works of C. Brockelmann (for the titles see the heading of § 1; vol. i of the Grundriss was finished in 1908); P. Kahle's Der masoretische Text des A Ts nach der UÏberlieferung der babylonischen Juden, Lpz. 1902 (giving on p. 51 ff. an outline of Hebrew accidence from a Babylonian MS. at Berlin); R. Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Lpz. 1905 f., 2 vols. (discriminating between certain, probable, and proposed emendations; see § 3 g, end); Th. NoÎldeke's BeitraÓge zur semit. Sprachwissenschaft, Strassburg, 1904; Ed. Sievers' Metrische Studien (for the titles of these striking works see § 2 r). The important work of J. W. Rothstein, GrundzuÎgedes hebr. Rhythmus, &c. (see also § 2 r), unfortunately appeared too late to be used. The two large commentaries edited byNowack and Marti have been recently completed; and in P. Haupt's Polychrome Bible (SBOT.), part ix (Kings) by Stade and Schwally was published in 1904.

For full reviews of the twenty-seventh edition, which of course have been considered as carefully as possible, I have to thank Max Margolis (in Hebraica, 1902, p. 159 ff.), Mayer Lambert (REJ. 1902, p. 307 ff.), and H. Oort (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1902, p. 373 ff.). For particular remarks and corrections I must thank Prof. J. Barth (Berlin), Dr. Gasser, pastor in Buchberg, Schaffhausen, B. Kirschner, of Charlottenburg, (contributions to the index of passages), Pastor KoÎhler, of Augst, Dr. Liebmann, of Kuczkow, Posen, Prof. Th. NoÎldeke, of Strassburg, Pastor S. Preiswerk junior, of BaÖle, Dr. Schwarz, of Leipzig, and Prof. B. Stade, of Giessen (died in 1906). Special mention must be made of the abundant help received from three old friends of this book, Prof. P. Haupt, of Baltimore, Prof. Knudtzon, of Kristiania, and Prof. H. Strack, of Berlin, and also, in connexion with the present edition, Prof. H. Hyvernat, of the University of Washington, who has rendered great service especially in the correction and enlargement of the indexes. I take this opportunity of thanking them all again sincerely. And I am no less grateful also to my dear colleague Prof. C. Steuernagel for the unwearying care with which he has helped me from beginning to end in correcting the proof-sheets.

Among material changes introduced into this edition may be mentioned the abolition of the term ewaÖ medium (§ 10 d). In this I have adopted, not without hesitation, the views of Sievers. I find it, however, quite impossible to follow him in rejecting all distinctions of quantity in the vowels. It is no doubt possible that such matters may in the spoken language have worn a very different appearance, and especially that in the period of nearly a thousand years, over which the Old Testament writings extend, very great variations may have taken place. Our duty, however, is to represent the language in the form in which it has been handed down to us by the Masoretes; and that this form involves a distinction between unchangeable, tone-long, and short vowels, admits in my opinion of no doubt. The discussion of any earlier stage of development belongs not to Hebrew grammar but to comparative Semitic philology.

The same answer may be made to Beer's desire (ThLZ. 1904, col. 314 f.) for an "historical Hebrew grammar describing the actual growth of the language on a basis of comparative philology, as it may still be traced within the narrow limits of the Old Testament ". Such material as is available for the purpose ought indeed to be honestly set forth in the new editions of Gesenius; but Beer seems to me to appraise such material much too highly when he refers to it as necessitating an "historical grammar". In my opinion these historical differences have for the most part been obliterated by the harmonizing activity of the Masoretes.

E. KAUTZSCH.

HALLE, July, 1909.

 

NOTE TO THE FIFTEENTH IMPRESSION

For this impression the Index of Passages has been extensively revised and corrected—it would hardly be an exaggeration to say re-compiled—by the Revd. John B. Job, Tutor in Old Testament Studies at Cliff College, Calver. The publishers are most grateful to him and to those members of the Society for Old Testament Study and others who reported mistakes in the original index.

Additions and Corrections

Of the additions and corrections prefixed to earlier impressions those that could be fitted into the text without difficulty have been transferred to it. The rest are printed below.

Page 63, § 15 p. [See also Wickes, Prose Accentuation, 130 f., 87 n. (who, however, regards the superlinear, Babylonian system as the earlier); and Ginsburg, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 76, 78. In Ginsburg's Hebrew Bible, ed. 2 (1908), pp. 108 f., 267 f., the two systems of division are printed in extenso, in parallel columns—the 10 verses of the superlinear (Babylonian) system consisting (in Exodus) of v.2, 3–6, 7, 8–11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (as numbered in ordinary texts), and the 12 verses of the sublinear (Palestinian) system, consisting of V.2–3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13–16, 17.—S. R. D.]
Page 65, note 1, for aN"añ†' read aNò'a†' (as § 105 a).
[Editions often vary in individual passages, as regards the accentuation of the first syllable: but in the 7 occurrences of ana, and the 6 of hna, Baer, Ginsburg, and Kittel agree in having an accent on both syllables (as aN"oaä') in Gn 50:17, Ex 32:31, y Ps 116:16, and Metheg on the first syllable and an accent on the second syllable (as hNæ'a†') in 2 K 20:3=Is 38:3 Jon 1:14, 4:2, y Ps 116:4, 118:25, 25, Dn 9:4, Ne 1:5, 11, except that in y Ps 116:4 Ginsburg has hNð'a'.—S. R. D.]

Page 79, § 22 s, before WhpuydIR>hi insert exceptions to b are. After Jer 39:12 add y Ps 52:5; and for Ez 9:6 read Ezr 9:6.

[So Baer (cf. his note on Jud 20:45; also on Jer 39:12, and several of the other passages in question): but Ginsburg only in 10 of the exceptions to b, and Jacob ben Hayyim and Kittel only in 5, viz. Jer 39:12, Pr 11:21, 15:1, y Ps 52:5, Ezr 9:6.—S. R. D.]

Page 123, § 45 e, add: cf. also hk'Peh.m; followed by ta, Is 13:19, Am 4:11(§ 115 d).
Page 175, § 67. See B. Halper, 'The Participial formations of the Geminate Verbs' in ZAW. 1910, pp. 42 fr., 99 fr., 201 fr. (also dealing with the regular verb).
Page 177, at the end of § 67 g the following paragraph has been accidentally omitted:
Rem. According to the prevailing view, this strengthening of the first radical is merely intended to give the bi-literal stem at least a tri-literal appearance. (Possibly aided by the analogy of verbs !¾¾p as P. Haupt has suggested to me in conversation.) But cf. Kautzsch, Die sog. aramaisierenden Formen der Verba [¾¾[ im Hebr.' in Oriental Studien zum 70. Geburtstag Th. Nöldekes, 1906, p. 771 ff. It is there shown (I) that the sharpening of the 1st radical often serves to emphasize a particular meaning (cf. rG"yI, but WhrñegOy>àlxey" and ,lxey:àbSoyI and bsoy"à~VoyI and ~v;Te), and else where no doubt to dissimilate the vowels (as rG"yIàlD;yI, never rg:y"àld;y" &c.): (2) that the sharpening of the 1st radicl often appears to be occasioned by the nature of the first letter of the stem, especially when it is a sibilant. whether the masoretic pronunciation is based on an early tradition, or the Masora has arbitrarily adopted aramaizing forms to attain the above objects, must be left undecided.
Page 236, § 85 c, add hq'z"n>h; Ezr 4:22.
Page 273, § 93 qq end, tArseAm Jer 5:5, ~y[iBerIà~yviLeviEz 20:5, tAmmevoIs 49:8, ~ymimevo La 1:16 (cf. König, ii. 109).