Some Peculiarities of Biblical Hebrew that affect interpretation

Some Peculiarities of Biblical Hebrew 

The language of Canaan in the alphabet of Aram 

Some of the forms of expression that prevail in the Hebrew Bible (the Christian “Old Testament”) are due to the characteristics of the language in which it was written. And these often affect the way Hebrew Bible texts are interpreted. Except for a few portions in Aramaic (Ezra 4:4 – 6:18; 7:12-26; Jeremiah 10:19; Daniel 2:4 – 7:28) the language of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament was what we call “Biblical Hebrew.” 

Hebrew was the language adopted by the Hebrews after they settled in Palestine following their Exodus from Egypt. It was essentially the same West Semitic dialect spoken by the Canaanites and their neighbors on the east and south, the Moabites and the Edomites, and by the Phoenicians who lived to their west and north along the Mediterranean coast. 

Those parts of the Hebrew Bible that were set down in writing earliest were no doubt written originally in the Canaanite alphabet as well. The Hebrews who first migrated to Canaan may have spoken the Akkadian language of Mesopotamia, or perhaps the Aramaic of Syria, the areas from which they migrated. Those who went down to Egypt probably had not adopted the Canaanite language by the time they left. The Hebrews in Egypt probably had used the language of that country while there. But after their arrival in Canaan, perhaps having even reunited with related tribes there who had never been to Egypt, they adopted or unconsciously absorbed the language of Canaan and made it their own, just as they also absorbed or adopted other aspects of Canaanite culture. 

Many centuries later, during and after the Babylonian captivity, the North Semitic dialect of Syria (Aram), known as Aramaic, came to be the common spoken language of the ancient Near East, replacing the earlier Akkadian. Aramaic was the language eventually spoken by Jesus and the Jews of the first century CE. Since the Aramaic alphabet was now more familiar, the books of the Hebrew Bible came to be copied in that script, rather than in the original Canaanite alphabet. Consequently “Biblical Hebrew” is actually the Canaanite language written in the Aramaic alphabet. 

The Semitic family of languages, to which Hebrew belongs, has some peculiarities that differ from the ones we find in our Indo-European (Western) languages. And these peculiarities often affect the way we should interpret Hebrew Bible texts. 

Reporting indirect speech by means of direct quotations 

First, the Biblical Hebrew grammar has no way of indicating what one person may have told another except by quoting directly what was (or should have been) said. Our English language allows us to report a statement indirectly: “He said that he would come.” Biblical Hebrew could not do this. It had to quote directly: “He said, ‘I will come.’” Thus, the Hebrew Bible does not say, indirectly, that the LORD made it known to Moses (or, as my Baptist mentors of previous generations might have expressed it, “The LORD ‘laid it on Moses’ heart’”) that he should go to the Pharaoh and tell the Pharaoh to let the people go out of his land. Rather, the expression in Exodus 6:11 is direct: 

And the LORD said to Moses, “Go in, tell Pharaoh king of Egypt to let the people of Israel go out of his land.” 

And again, Jeremiah does not indirectly record that the LORD led him to the potter’s house in order to teach the prophet concerning His truth. Rather, Jeremiah 18:1-2 puts it in a direct manner: 

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear My words.” 

And even an indefinite inner feeling is similarly reported with a direct quotation, as in 1 Samuel 27:1: 

David said in his heart, “I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul; there is nothing better for me than that I should escape to the land of the Philistines.” 

This peculiarity of Biblical Hebrew might also account for the fact that “Divine inspiration” often is expressed in terms of conversation. Lengthy speeches of the LORD are recorded in great detail, even on occasions when there was no one present to report what was said. For example, the first chapter of Genesis speaks of the creation of the world as resulting from a series of statements from God that are spoken as direct quotations, even though there was no one present to hear these statements: “God said, ‘Let there be light . . .’”; “God said, ‘Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters . . . ’”; “God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures . . . ’” (Genesis 1:3, 6, 24). 

The acts (and not just the speeches) recorded as God’s in the Hebrew Bible are therefore called “the ‘word’ of God.” God’s act is God’s “word.” God’s purpose communicated to human beings is God’s “word.” The Ten Commandments, in the Hebrew Bible are literally, “the Ten Words” (Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 4:13; 10:4; cf. Exodus 20:1; 24:3, 4, 8; 34:1, 27; Deuteronomy 4:12, 36; 5:5, 22 [English; 19 Hebrew], 28 [E; 25 H]). The “word” of the LORD that came to the prophet was the prophet’s inspiration, a sense that God had communicated His truth and called the prophet to action. 

Much futile debate has taken place over the question as to whether, when God “spoke” to a prophet, there was an audible sound or only an inner compulsion. If a tape recorder had been there, what would the tape have disclosed? We have no way of knowing the answer. But the widespread perplexity among many as to what is meant by God’s “word” may be in some measure a result of this peculiarity of Biblical Hebrew. 

Hebrew verbs do not express a sense of time 

A second peculiarity of Biblical Hebrew is in its system of verbs. Biblical Hebrew does not have “tenses” in the same sense that English does. In English and in most other Western languages the form of the verb generally indicates whether the time of the action or state of being is past, present, or future. Biblical Hebrew has only “states” or “conditions” or “aspects” of the verb. There is an imperative form in Biblical Hebrew to indicate commands, and a participle form that indicates continuous activity or being, and there are “perfect” and “imperfect” “tenses” that do not principally indicate time at all. Rather, the “tenses” indicate whether the action is in process or completed. It would be as if the English word “go” had only two basic forms, “going” and “gone.” 

The intent of the Biblical Hebrew writer or speaker as to the time of the action or state of being must be determined from the context in the sentence or even in the paragraph or in the entire passage. And sometimes it must be left uncertain or ambiguous. Thus, a person might be “going” at the present moment, or might have been “going” ten years ago, or might be “going” next week. Likewise one might be “gone” at the present moment, or might have been “gone” last year, or might be “gone” next year. The context must provide the clues. 

When the translator translates a Hebrew verb into English, a time element generally must be supplied, because our own English language, and other European languages, forces us to do so this, since the time of the action is a category that determines the inflection of our verbs. But by so doing we inevitably define and even limit the content of the original word, and to that extent we are in danger of distorting the original meaning at the same time we are attempting to understand it. In some cases when we do this, the original Hebrew words no longer have the breadth of meaning in English that they should have had in the original Hebrew. A skillful translation in such cases would be one that maintains the ambiguities and the breadth of meaning of the original as effectively as possible. But no translation, however well done, can preserve them all. Often the translator who would be faithful to his calling must make tough choices. 

One good example of the problem of time ambiguity is found in the explanation of the Divine Name YHWH (“the LORD”) as described in the encounter of Moses with God at the burning bush (Exodus 3:13-14). In answer to Moses’ question, as to what he should answer when the Israelites ask about God, “What is His Name?” the Revised Standard Version of this passage records that God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” This translation (probably rightly) assumes that the Divine Name is a third-person form of the Hebrew verb translated “to be,” in the imperfect “tense.” But the Hebrew words of the explanation may mean something other than “I AM WHO I AM.” Other equally possible renderings are, “I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE,” or “I CAUSE [or, HAVE CAUSED] TO BE WHAT I CAUSE [or HAVE CAUSED] TO BE,” or “I BRING [or, HAVE BROUGHT] INTO BEING WHAT IS.” And there are many other possibilities as well. 

Another significant and problematic passage is Isaiah 7:14. The real key to interpreting this passage is not whether the word “virgin” or “young woman” or “maiden” is the correct translation of the Hebrew word ‘almah (in every other occurrence in the Hebrew Bible it clearly means “young woman,” so this time should be no exception). But the real key is determining whether the time of the verbs in this passage should be interpreted as past, present, or future. There are at least three equally valid alternatives: 

Behold, the maiden shall [i.e., sometime in either the near or the far distant future] conceive and shall [in the near or far distant future] bear a son and shall [i.e., at that time] call his name “Immanu-El,” OR, 

Behold, the maiden [has] conceived [i.e., in the not-too distant past] and has borne [i.e., very recently] a son and shall [in the near future] call [or has called in the recent past] his name “Immanu-El,” OR, 

Behold, the maiden has conceived [i.e., is pregnant], and is about to bear [i.e., in the near future; OR, shall bear, i.e., within the next few months] a son, and shall call his name “Immanu-El.” 

There are other combinations that also might be equally valid. The translator has to look at the context, the logic of the situation being described, and in some cases, his own subjective “gut feelings,” as well as the pre-suppositions of his faith tradition. It is a tough judgment call for any translator who desires to be faithful to his calling. 

My own choice is the third alternative. In the first place, the “sign” being described is one on which King Ahaz must base his imminent decision. (Note also the context of Isaiah 7:14 in the events described in the beginning of that chapter, and also in the context of the events described in 2 Kings 16 about the reign of King Ahaz). Second, the Hebrew text speaks not of “a” maiden, but of “the” maiden [i.e., the one whom both Isaiah and Ahaz know—presumably either the wife of Ahaz or the wife of Isaiah]. In that context we may be fairly sure that “maiden” or “young woman” is more likely correct than “virgin” as the translation of ‘almah. 

A third example may show how an English translation often fails to represent the full depth of meaning to be found in the Hebrew text. Great numbers of people have learned by heart the familiar King James Version or the Revised Standard Version of Psalm 23: 

The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want; 

He makes me lie down in green pastures. 

He leads me beside still waters; 

He restores my soul . . . 

The Hebrew verbs used here are a series of participles and imperfect tenses. In English we shift the time element from the present to the future: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.” But the Hebrew verb forms do not necessarily imply one time to the exclusion of another. Here they suggest continuity, without reference to time. If we could translate without bringing in the time-factor, we might more accurately represent what was intended, though it would not then be good English sentence structure: 

The LORD—the One shepherding me; 

I—lacking nothing; 

He—the One making me lie down in green pastures; 

He—the One leading me beside peaceful waters; 

He—the One constantly restoring my very being . . . 

Such a rendering might suggest, as does the original, that in times past the Lord has always shown Himself to be this kind of shepherd; that in the present the LORD is always acting in these ways; and that in the future the LORD can be expected faithfully to continue the same way. 

The following, rather awkward, paraphrase expresses my own sense of the meaning of Psalm 23: 

Psalm 23:1 A Psalm of, or for, David.

The LORD is the One constantly shepherding me.

Never am I lacking for anything.

2 Among meadows of lush green vegetation

Constantly He is making me lie down.
Beside peaceful waters

Always He is leading me.

3 My very being continually He is restoring.
Always He is guiding me along the right paths

For the sake of His Good Name.
4 Even though I may be wandering

Along a dark ravine,

Never am I fearing calamity,

For always, You are with me.
Your rod and Your crook—

These constantly are keeping me secure.

5 Continually You are spreading a banquet before me

Even in the presence of those who have been causing me distress.

You have richly bathed my head with oil.

Always my cup is filled to overflowing.

6 Indeed, good things and acts of loving-kindness are continually pursuing me

Every day of my life,

And continually I shall be residing in the LORD’s household

For the length of my days. 

In a similar way, in many other Psalms, the timelessness of Hebrew verbs has a significant value in relation to the theology they set forth. 

The scarcity of adjectives in Biblical Hebrew 

A third peculiarity of Biblical Hebrew is the scarcity of adjectives. Hebrew does have some adjectives: “large” and “small,” “old” and “new,” “good” and “bad,” “righteous” and “wicked,” and a few others. But by comparison with European languages like English and French and German, adjectives are rather scarce in Biblical Hebrew. Their place is usually supplied by placing two nouns in close relationship to each other, much like the possessive case in English, so that one noun qualifies the other. Biblical Hebrew cannot actually say, “green pastures,” for example, but rather, “pastures of greenness,” and it cannot actually say, “still [i.e., peaceful] waters,” so it says, “waters of peace.” 

And thus it is that we often encounter, especially in the more literal English translations like the King James Version, phrases like, “a man of valor,” or “a city of righteousness,” or “a God of steadfast love.” Likewise, we have, “man of God” (i.e. “a godly man”) and “son of consolation,” (i.e., “a man who consoles his friends”) even “son of God” (i.e., “a man in whom people see something of God's character reflected.” People who have become accustomed to reading the Bible often encounter such phrases and think nothing of them. But that is not the way we customarily express ourselves in English. 

And sometimes an English translation like that may not mean exactly what the original Hebrew intended. For example, Samuel is referred to as a “man of God,” which could imply that he was a “godly man,” or even that he had some quality of “divinity” about him, or simply that he displayed characteristics and attitudes, motives, sympathies, and understandings that others think of appropriate to God. But in this case probably it means that a man who “belonged” to God, that his life, like that of the prophets and other special individuals in the Bible, was dedicated to God’s service. Likewise, we have, “son of consolation,” (i.e., “a man who provides consolation”) even “son of God” (i.e., “a man in whom people see something of God's character reflected.”) 

The concept of “corporate personality” 

A fourth peculiarity of Biblical Hebrew is that this language is able to speak of groups of people as though they were an individual, and of individuals as though they were the group that they represent. Biblical interpreters call this phenomenon the concept of “corporate personality.” Many of the Psalms, for example, express the lament or yearning of an individual, as though a single and specific worshiper were speaking. Yet many of them are, without doubt, not prayers of individual persons at all, but of the personified community of Israel. 

Small clues often give the secret away, as in Psalm 89:39-40: 

39 You have renounced the covenant with Your servant; 

You have defiled his crown in the dust. 

40 You have broken through all his walls; 

You have laid his strongholds in ruins. 

It is clear that the Psalmist is here referring, not to an individual, but to the nation. The reference obviously is to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian armies in 586 BCE. 

Similarly it is a common practice for the prophets to refer to the northern kingdom of Israel as “Jacob,” the name of their reputed ancestor, or as “Ephraim,” largest of the ten tribes comprising that nation. Likewise the prophets speak of the southern kingdom of Judah as “David,” the name of their greatest ruler. Thus, the prophets speak to those nations as if to a single person. Jeremiah 31:9 can thus represent the LORD as saying: 

. . . I am Father to Israel, 

Ephraim is My first-born. 

And thus Hosea 11:1 portrays God speaking about the Exodus experience: 

When Israel was a child, I loved him, 

And out of Egypt I called My son . . . 

The famous blessing of Jacob on his twelve sons (Genesis 49:2-27) refers to them as individuals, but the descriptions concern the future of the tribes, as verse 28 explains: “All these are the twelve tribes of Israel.” 

Likewise the famous poems of the “suffering servant of the LORD” in Isaiah 40-55 use the idea of “corporate personality.” Many of the words are used in the singular, and it is clearly stated or evident that large number of them refer to the nation of Israel as God’s servant (cf., e.g., Isaiah 41:8-10; 42:18-25; 43:10; 44:1-5). Those who interpret these poems must take into account the concept of corporate personality in order to make sense of them. 

Biblical Hebrew prefers concrete to abstract concepts 

There are very few abstract words used in the Hebrew Bible. Biblical Hebrew has no terms to denote nature, matter, or universe. The Hebrew Bible speaks of “the heavens and the earth” to designate the world as a whole. To express God’s creative act, unique of its kind, the Hebrew Bible cannot just say that God created the world out of “nothing.” The writer of Genesis 1 finds it necessary to suggest the fact by employing a series of expressions borrowed from the mythological terminology of ancient Mesopotamia (“without form and void”; “the deep”; “darkness,” etc.). 

Words evoked attitudes, qualities, and concrete situations for the Hebrews. Even when their meaning has evolved and become richer, they remain connected with their original sense. For example: 

“Glory” implies something heavy and weighty: the person who is honored has some “weight.” Even in English we sometimes speak of influential people who “throw their weight around.” The New Testament picks up this nuance when Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:7 speaks of “an eternal weight of glory.” 

“Peace” is a reality, definable, not negatively, by the absence of struggle, but positively, by the presence of abundance, of fulfillment, and of good human relationships. The word comes from a root that evokes the idea of something full or complete. 

“Soul” is not some invisible entity, located within the body about three inches to the right of the heart, which is removed when death comes. In Biblical Hebrew “soul” is first of all the very breath or respiration of a person, and is related to its location, the throat; its meaning extends to life itself, of which breath is a condition. “Soul” also designates the whole person; “my soul,” is better translated, “my self,” i.e., “my very being.” 

To “lose” one’s “soul” is therefore to lose one’s breath and one’s life and one’s very self-hood. The “soul” is, moreover, so little to be regarded as an immaterial and invisible and immortal entity that we encounter it in the Hebrew Bible sighing, rejoicing, being impatient, quenching its thirst, trembling with horror, and dying. The interpreter must beware of regarding “soul” as the opposite of the body and of the flesh. To the people of the Hebrew Bible a human being was an indissoluble unity, not a composite of two or three parts, body and soul, or body, soul, and spirit. 

“Spirit,” like “soul,” is related to something concrete—wind and breath, and the term retains this meaning wherever it occurs. This connection of spirit, wind, and breath occurs in a vivid way in Ezekiel’s famous vision in the valley of dry bones (Ezekiel 37) and in Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus when Jesus speaks about being “born again” or “born from above” (John 3). 

To our Western ways of thinking the vocabulary of the Hebrew Bible (and indeed, even the New Testament, whose writers were primarily Jews who had inherited that way of thinking) seems to confuse the material and the non-material, the concrete and the abstract. The Hebrew Bible is astonishingly graphic and concrete in its imagery. The Biblical Hebrew vocabulary is living and realistic, and must be understood on its own terms. 

The reader of the Hebrew Bible, even in English translation, must therefore always remain aware that certain forms of expression are characteristic of the language in which it was written, and that various modes of expression peculiar to that language and culture were habitually used in Biblical times. Our modern understanding of the meaning of Biblical texts must be conditioned by these considerations. Whether words are to be taken by a modern interpreter at face value, or whether they must be subject to interpretation in the light of the peculiarities of the language that have been outlined above, is something that must always be taken into consideration. 

This lecture has been based upon, and adapted from, discussions of the same subject in the following works: 

Edward W. Goodrick. Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek: Everybody’s Guide to the Language Tools. Portland, Oregon: Multnomah Press, second edition, 1980, pp.15:3 – 15:6. 

E. Kautzsch. Trans. By A. E. Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Second English ed., 1910 (Trans. From 28th German ed., 1909). 

Marc H. Lovelace. Compass Points For Old Testament Study. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972, pp. 43-45. 

Robert Martin-Achard. An Approach to the Old Testament. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd, 1965, pp. 43-51. 

and especially:

Gurdon C. Oxtoby. Prediction and Fulfillment in the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966, pp. 122-131.