M. (Levy)-Rubin, “The Language of Creation or The Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity”, Journal of Jewish Studies, 49 (1998), 306-333.

The Language of Creation or the Primordial Language: A Case of Cultural Polemics in Antiquity MILKA RUBIN THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM ,lTJ hat was the language God spoke when he created the world? In what Y language did he speak to Adam? What was that 'one language and one speech' mentioned in the book of Genesis (11:1) which people spoke before the languages were confused? Traditions concerning this matter are copious and variegated; sometimes agreeing with each other, at others strongly contradicting; they exist in Jewish, Christian and Muslim literature for over a thousand years in different geographical, cultural and social milieus.' The number of the sources, their wide geographical distribution, and their longevity point to their wide dissemination and to the preoccupation of people with this question beginning from the second century B.C.E. and throughout the following millennium. In this paper I propose to attend to the cause of this long-standing, widely disseminated argument in the Near East in late antiquity, to the identities of its participators, to their declared positions, and to their different claims. What, in fact, were their motivations? Why were they driven to take a certain position and oppose another? Above all, were the positions taken in this polemic due to religious sympathies, as may be expected, or do they perhaps have to do with other more complex affinities? How did linguistic, cultural, and religious identities relate to each other? I do not aspire, however, to tend to numerous other aspects of the matter, such as the ontological significance of language which as will be seen is a precondition to this argument, or to numerous theological questions which arise; these obviously require a work of much broader scope. I I would like to thank Professor J. Yahalom and Professor D.Mendels for their helpful remarks. Errors, remain, of course, mine alone. The debate over the subject never died, in fact; rather, it continued to spread and to occupy many minds in Europe for a long time yet: see D. S. Katz, 'The Language of Adam in Seventeenth Century England', in H. Lloyd-Jones et al. (eds.), History and Imagination: Essays in Honour of H. R. Trevor-Roper (London, 1981), pp. 132-45 and additional literature there. For a comprehensive survey of opinions and concepts on this subject throughout history, see U. Eco, The Search for the Perfect Language (transl. by J. Fentress) (Oxford, 1995). For views and concepts in Qabbalah concerning this issue, see G. Scholem, 'The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbala', Diogenes 79 (1972), pp. 59-80; 80 (1972), pp. 164-94; see also M. Idel, 'Reification of Language in Jewish Mysticism', in S. T. Katz (ed.), Mysticism and Language (Oxford, 1992), pp. 42-79. The colossal study undertaken by A. Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel (Stuttgart, 1957) (=Borst), although naturally not updated, includes a vast amount of traditions concerning the story of Babel, the confusion of languages, the list of peoples, etc. See also G. Lepschy (ed.), History of Linguistics: The Eastern Traditions of Linguistics, vol. 1, (New York, 1994) (=Lepschy), as well as the following volumes. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 307 The question of the origin and nature of language was widespread among classical philosophers: is human language natural or inherent, or is it merely an assemblage of conventional signs?2 Thus, while Cratylus, after whom Plato's dialogue is named, believed that a superhuman power was the inventor of names,3 his opponent Hermogenes believed that they are but signs expressing conventional agreement; Socrates, choosing the middle path, suggested that language is a medium which attempts to reproduce the fixed nature of things, but that this imitation is never perfect.4 Aristotle, on the other hand, declared unreservedly that 'a name is a spoken sound significant by convention ... no name is a name naturally but only when it has become a symbol'.5 This rational approach could not have provided the fuel for the intense polemic about to be treated here. In the ancient Near East, where language served as a medium, a means of communication between God or other heavenly entities and the earthly beings, the prevalent conception was that language is a 'manifestation of the sacred'.6 Thus, language which was used for prayer and other liturgical needs was considered sacred, archaic words or formulas (such as Amen, Hallelujah, Kyrie Eleison) were kept on unchanged after they were no longer understood; complete ceremonies and rituals went on being conducted in a language long incomprehensible to their participators because the language of the ritual was considered sacred. In cases where the language of prayer did follow the shift which occurred in the spoken language, it did so only much later, lingering and hesitating. Revelation in a certain language brought about not only sanctification of the writings, but sanctification of the language in which the revelation was made along with it. The language of revelation would be considered the 'language of truth', a vehicle of direct contact with the Deity. Revelations, prophecies and liturgical texts however are by nature particularistic and enhance competition between the different religions to which they were given. This is not the case when one is faced with the question posed here, namely, 'in what language was the world created?' Or what was the common language of mankind before the confusion of languages, referred to in Gen. 11:1? In this case, there could be only one language, and therefore one universal solution to this question. Moreover, in contrast to the language of revelation, this question is not necessarily tied up with religious identity, since most languages in the ancient Near East were spoken by members of differ2 Classical ideas and approaches concerning the subject are widely discussed by W S. Allen, 'Ancient Ideas on the Origin and Development of Language', Transactions ofthe Philological Society (1948), pp. 35-60. Jewish and Christian ideas are, however, easily dismissed as 'professional religious interference' (ibid, p. 38). See W K. C. Guthrie, The Sophists (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 204-18; G. B. Kerferd, The Sophistic Movement (Cambridge, 1981), ch. 7: 'The Theory of Language', pp. 68-77; I would like to thank Dr R. Glasner for her assistance in this matter. 3 See Guthrie, above, p. 208. 4 Ibid, p. 208; Plato, Cratylus, 421d. 5 Aristotle, De Interpretatione, 16aI9, 16a26, in J. L. Ackrill (ed. and transl.), Aristotle's Categories and De Interpretatione (Oxford, 1963), pp. 43, 44. 6 See W T. Wheelock, 'Sacred Language', in M. Eliade, The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 8 (London and New York, 1987), pp. 439-46, esp. pp. 439-41. 308 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES ent religious denominations, or, to put it the other way round, members of the same religious group spoke different languages. This, as will be shown further on, did indeed create a picture which is much more complex then religious polemics tend to be, when the contender's position was clearly determined by his religious affinity. What is meant by the language which God spoke? The belief that language was a fundamental force in the process of creation was widespread in the ancient Near East. It is attested already in ancient Sumer where only the force of the word itself could bring about the creation of an object.7 This belief is represented clearly in Genesis where 'God said, "Let there be light"' (1:2). Later Jewish sources are insistent on the fact that 'the whole world was created by God's word' and that 'God's word is a deed'.8 Philo identified the logos with the Biblical 'Word of God',9 while early Christianity emphasized the character of Jesus, the Logos, as the Word, rather than as an idea.10 Later Jewish Qabbalistic sources viewed creation as a process in which the divine language unfolded, through the emanation of divine words and letters. Language was in this case a potent force of creation, and not just a means of conveying thoughts, ideas, plans or feelings-i.e. not just 'words'.II It follows therefore, that if indeed, there was one language and one speech on earth-a language which God used in order to create the world and which was in use until God confused the languages-then this language must indeed be the true divine language, a language untouched and unspoilt by human speech. Adam plays a special role here: he is the first human spoken to by God in this 'universal tongue'; as the first human he is awarded the special role of naming God's creations (Gen. 2:19). This necessarily implies that whoever holds onto this unique divine language is in consequence the 'favourite son', closest and most intimate to God, and therefore superior.12 It is the language itself, not the message or revelation conveyed by it, that decides this question, the winner claiming first and foremost linguistic and cultural superiority over all other languages and cultures. The question of the 'language of creation' or the 'primordial language' serves therefore as a cultural yardstick of different cultural identities. Thus, people may speak a language as a practical means of communicating without being attached to it or identified by it; they may also easily exchange this language for another for practical reasons. Yet, if they claim that their language is the 7 E. A. Speiser, The Creation Epic: Ancient Near-Eastern Texts relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, 1955), Tab, 1, It. 1-2, pp. 60-61. 8 See e.g. Genesis Rabbah, 44:22. For additional sources see L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, vol. I (Philadelphia, 1947), p. 49, n. I (=Ginzberg). See also Ps. 33:6: 'By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth', and Mekhilta d'Rabbi Shimeon Bar Yohai, Beshalah 15; and Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishma'el, Beshalah, 10. I am indebted to Dr A. Schremer for this last reference. 9 'ho logos ergon en autou'; see The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, 18, 65, LCL, ed. E H. Colson and G. H. Whittaker, vol. 2 (London, 1929), p. 142 (143 transl.). 10 See J. Pepin, 'Logos', The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade, vol. 9 (London and New York, 1987), pp. 9-15, esp. pp. 12-13. 1 i Ibid. 12 See Wheelock (n. 6), p. 441. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 309 primordial language, they thereby define their cultural identity and declare their superiority. The condition for entering this 'competition' is the acceptance of the Biblical story of the Creation and the confusion of languages (Gen. 11:7). It is therefore an argument that takes place among members belonging to the monotheistic religions. Already in the hellenistic east there existed a competition of a 'nationalistic' character among different ethnic and cultural groups who were rewriting their histories, thus reshaping their 'national' identities to prove their antiquity and superiority.13 Some of these seem to have disintegrated, declined or lost under Roman rule.14 Yet, the existence of a live discussion over the primordial language proves that this competition did not die out; in fact, it was later rekindled even more fiercely when cultural identities were once again being defined and moulded and were becoming gradually more distinct when large parts of the pagan population, which had become Christian, were redefining their identity. In the following pages I will present the different claimants of linguistic and cultural superiority throughout this long-standing argument, and will try and determine the motives behind their claims.15 Although, as has already been emphasized, it is the linguistic-cultural element which is being examined here, it is, of course, not unrelated to religious identities. I will therefore present for practical purposes the different testimonies concerning this question, according to their religious affiliation, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, in this order. Within these groups, the different claims will be presented; in addition, I will attempt to maintain chronological order. The Jewish Positions It is in Jewish sources that the question of the language of creation is first raised. In the Book of Jubilees, written probably in the second half of the second century B.C.E.,16 the angel sent by God to dictate the Torah to Moses 13 See D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism (Doubleday, 1992) (=Mendels, Jewish Nationalism), pp. 35-50. 14 See E Millar, 'Empire, Community and Culture in the Roman Near East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and Arabs', JJS 38 (1987), pp. 143-64; idem, The Roman Near East, 31 B.C-337 A.D. (Cambridge, Mass., 1994). 15 Numerous references were given already by Charles in his English translation of Jubilees. See R. H. Charles, The Book ofJubilees (London, 1902), p. 27, n. 28, pp. 95-96, and notes. 16 The precise dating of the Book of Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which will be cited presently, have been widely disputed; while many claim that they were written in the first half of the second century B.C.E., others claim that they belong to the second half of the century, when the Hasmonean state was already in existance. On Jubilees, see J. C. Vanderkam, The Book ofJubilees (Louvain, 1989), pp. v-vi; D. Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature (Tuibingen, 1987), p. 57 and n. 2, pp. 77-81; see there references to other opinions. For the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see Bickerman, 'The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs', JBL 69 (1950), pp. 245-60, who was followed by others and advocated a pre-Maccabean date. He is opposed among others by H. W Hollander and M. De Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs-A Commentary (Brill, 1985), p. 4, who support the opinion that it must have been written in the last decade of the second cen- 310 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES says when speaking of Abraham: Then the Lord God said to me: 'Open his mouth and his ears, to hear and speak with his tongue in the revealed language.' For from the day of the collapse it had disappearedfrom the mouth(s) ofall mankind. I opened his mouth, ears and lips, and began to speak Hebrew with him-in the language ofthe creation. He took his fathers' books (they were written in Hebrew), and copied them. From that time he began to study them while I was telling him everything that he was unable (to understand).17 Three things are stated in these passages. The first is that the language of revelation and the language of creation are one and the same. The second is that this language is undoubtedly Hebrew, the language in which the books of the fathers were written. The third is that there was a period, between the confusion of languagest8 and this revelation to Abraham, when the Hebrew language was dormant and forgotten. Another idea which appears in Jubilees is that all living creatures were familiar with the language of creation, and in fact spoke this language until the confusion (Jub. 3:28). This is repeated by Josephus, and by Philo.19 The Hebrew version of the Testament of Naphtali20 notes that in the generation of Peleg (lit. division, or confusion), in whose days the families of the earth were divided, seventy angels divided the seventy languages among the families of the earth. 'But the holy language, the Hebrew language, remained only in the house of Shem and Eber, and in the house of Abraham our father, who is one of their descendents.' 21 A fragment from Qumran22 dated to the Herodian period, although quite damaged, seems to convey similarly that the language that was confused in Babel remained only with Abraham, or was perhaps given back to him, according to the version of Jubilees. There are, however, two new elements in this fragment. The first, that the Hebrew language called in Jubilees both Hebrew and the 'revealed language' is called here Leshon Haqodesh, 'the lantury B.C.E.; their opinion is supported by Mendels, ibid., pp. 89 108 (for earlier and additional references see there, p. 90, nn. 5-6). 17 The Book of Jubilees, 12:25-27, ed. and transl. by J. C. Vanderkam, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 115 (Louvain, 1989), pp. 73-74. 1 nDrl i.e. collapse, was the name given to the fallen tower of Babel; see Jub. 10:26. 19 See Josephus, Antiquities, I, 4; Philo, Quaestiones in Genesim, 1, 32. 20 Concerning the date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see above, note 16. The dating ofthe Hebrew fragment ofthe Testament of Naphtali found in the Genizah and its relation to the Greek version have been a subject of great contention among scholars. M. Gaster, who first published it in 1894, claimed that it was the original, while R. H. Charles and J. Becker contended that the Hebrew was late and secondary. It has been shown of late by Th. Korteweg that the Hebrew text is much more coherent and integral, and is therefore more closely related to the original. See Th. Korteweg, 'The Meaning of Naphtali's Visions', in M. de Jonge (ed.), Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Brill, 1975), pp. 261-91, esp. 270 ff.; see also Hollander and De Jonge, ibid., p. 296. 21 See H. W Hollander and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Leiden, 1985), Appendix I, p. 449. See also Ginzberg, vol. 2, p. 214. 22 E. Eshel and M. E. Stone, 'The Holy Language at the End of the Days in Light of a New Fragment Found at Qumran', Tarbiz 62 (1992/1993), pp. 169-78 (in Hebrew). THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 311 guage of the holy' (later to be understood as 'the holy language').23 This is the first occurrence of this term which later becomes very common, if we don't take into account the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, which may be earlier, but its dating cannot be fixed with certainty. The second new element is that this language, Leshon Haqodesh, in which the world was created will prevail once more in the end of the days, when all nations will once again speak this primordial language in which the world was created, and which was spoken once by all living creatures. This concept is based in the text upon Zephaniah 3:9: 'I will give all people once again clear language', which is cited in this fragment. These traditions, which originated in Jewish circles in the second and first century B.C.E. apparently, echoed and resonated again and again both in time and in space among all partakers in this discussion. In Jewish literature, they are prevalent in Midrashic literature which formed in the third and fourth centuries C.E. Thus the Tanhuma Yelamdenu (Gen. 11), which preserves early traditions some of which go back to the fourth century C.E.,24 says that the language spoken before the confusion of languages was 'Leshon Haqodeshthe holy language through which the world had been created'.25 According to Zephaniah 3:9, says Tanhuma, this will also be the language which will be spoken by all nations in the world to come.26 The same idea is found in the different versions of Yerushalmi Targum referring to Genesis 11:1.27 Bereshit Rabbah, like Jubilees, equals the language of revelation-the Torah-with that of the creation. This tradition, however, adds an interesting linguistic proof to this claim. Is there any other language, the reader is asked, in which the word 'woman' is formed from the word 'man' the way it is in Hebrew ('ish-'issha), just as the woman was formed from the man? Can one form a feminine equivalent of anthropos, or a masculine equivalent of gynh ? 28 Echoes of these traditions, some of them, no doubt, already reacting to various opposing opinions, are found in various later Jewish sources.29 It should be noted that in the second and first centuries B.C.E., when 23 The original meaning of the term is in dispute; while some scholars claim that it originated in the term lishan beit qudsha appearing in some places-the language of the temple or the language of the house of prayer-others claim that qodesh (holy) here stands for God, i.e. God's language. This is in fact in concord with the version of the Yerushalmi (Megillah, 1 b), 'And the whole world was one language ... that is they were speaking the language of 13lY EV I-lTnT that is Leshon Haqodesh'. On this question, see Eshel and Stone (above). 24 See M. Bregman, 'Early Sources and Traditions in the Tanhuma-Yelammedenu Midrashim', Tarbiz 60 (1990/1991), pp. 269-74, who cites S. Liebermann, D. Sperber and others. 25 Buber ed. (New York, 1946), p. 58 (in Hebrew); transl. by J. T. Townsend, vol. 1 (New Jersey, 1989), p. 60. 26 This idea is preserved also in Karaite tradition. See Y Erder, 'Yefet Ben Eli's attitude towards Islam', in Mikhael 14 (1997), p. 46, n. 99 (in Hebrew). 27 Pseudo Jonathan, Gen. I 1:1: xvnlp lr"= en Tl 'w -in x 'rn 1 -in Trf -i1ms bn inTlnl.1fl nnrNrw 7 nf5nn 1l. A similar version appears in Neofiti I: see A. "M'1V xX Z'M Diez Macho, Neophiti I, vol. I: Genesis (Madrid, 1968), p. 57. On the tradition of the Yerushalmi Targum, see A. Shinan, The Embroidered Targum (Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 113-15 (in Hebrew). 28 Ber Rabbah, 18, 4. 29 E.g. The Book of the Kuzari by Judah Ha-Levi (II, 68); The Chronicles of Jerahmeel (transl. by M. Gaster; London, 1899; repr. New York, 1971), ch. 38, p. 92 (both written in the twelfth century); Abravanel, Commentary on Zephania, Introduction, and comm., ch. 3. 312 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES these ideas were first being formed and spread, there were also other opinions among Jews, but these seem to have been marginal. Thus, in hellenistic Jewish literature there is a tradition, found later in Greek and Latin patristic literature as well, that the name Adam was made up of the initials of the four points of the compass in Greek.30 This was probably connected with the tradition that the earth of which Adam was formed was collected from the four points of the compass.31 Be this as it may, it is quite evident that Jews who held on to this tradition were either oblivious of the concept of Hebrew as the language of creation, or otherwise chose to ignore it, considering it unimportant. Moreover, this concept testifies to the high degree in which hellenistic Jewry identified with the prevalent cultural language which they adopted. Although other opinions which will be surveyed below, existed also in later times, these, too, were never as central as the concept of Leshon Haqodesh. It seems, therefore, that in Jewish literature from the second century B.C.E. onwards there was a prevalent concept according to which Hebrew was not only the language of revelation,32 but was believed to be the primordial language in which God, in his word, created the world, the language in which he spoke to Adam, and the language spoken by all creatures until the fall, and by all people upon the earth until the confusion of languages. The question which obviously arises is why this subject comes up when it does? The earliest sources we have, the Book of Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, go back to the second century B.C.E., a time in which the Jewish entity in Palestine was acquiring a new dimension. Hellenistic rule in the East had raised questions concerning ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity among many peoples under its sway. The Jewish people seem to have reacted to this challenge very strongly. It has already been noted that although the concept of 'the chosen people' and the ideal of liberation from political subjugation were imbued in the people of Israel from its beginning, during the Second Temple period a new ideology of liberty and freedom was being formed.33 In fact, the period of the Hasmonean revolt may be pinpointed as the specific time in which this new ideology penetrated and impregnated 30 Oracula Sibyllina, in Grieschischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, vol. 8, pp. 47-48, transl. by R. H. Charles, Pseudoepigrapha, p. 379: 'Yea it is God himselfwho fashioned four-lettered Adam, the first man fashioned who completes in his name morn and dusk, antarctic and arctic'; the tradition appears also in Slavonic version of the Secrets of Enoch, ch. 30. See Charles, ibid, p. 449,11. 13-15. 31 See Ginzberg, vol. 1, p. 54, and n. 14; Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer, 11 (transl. G. Friedlander; New York, 1965), p. 77; Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 2:7 Chronicles ofJerahmeel, p. 15 (above, n. 29); see also D. Wasserstein, 'The Creation of Adam and the Apocrypha in Early Ireland', Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, vol. 88, section C, pp. 1-17. 32 According to some traditions, Hebrew was not only the language of both revelation and creation, but the revelation itself, i.e. the Torah, actually pre-existed the creation and served in fact as a central element in the creation: 'God was looking at the Torah, and creating the world'. See Midrash Rabbah 1, 1; Ber. Rabbah 1, 1; BPesahim 54a. 33 See D. Flusser, 'The Dead of Masada in the Eyes of their Contemporaries', in I. Gafni et al. (eds.), Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Period: Studies in Honor of Shmuel Safrai (Jerusalem, 1993), p. 126 (in Hebrew), pp. 118-20 (in Hebrew); D. Mendels, Jewish Nationalism, pp. 13-80. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 313 Jewish society in Palestine.34 According to I Maccabees 14:26 the people of Israel say that the Maccabees 'fought off the enemies of Israel and established its liberty'. It is no accident that the question of the primordial language came up exactly at this time, when a new concept of national identity was being formed. A distinctive language is a clear expression of a unique and separate cultural identity. During the early Hasmonaean period the notion that the Jews are a separate nation with its own religion, culture, customs and land was developed. It is thus clear that language-the main vehicle of expression-should also be unique and serve as an organ of this national culture and identity. It has already been proposed35 that the Hebrew language was not the prevalent language of speech in the Second Temple period (as has been claimed by some), nor was it just a liturgical language; rather, it was a national symbol. This explains well why coins in Palaeo-Hebrew script which was not in use otherwise during the Second Temple period bearing the image of the national symbol-the temple-appeared,36 and texts such as the book of Maccabees, Jubilees, the Temple Scroll and Ben Sirach were written in literary and archaic Hebrew, often imitating biblical texts. The claim is that Hebrew was being used for ideological reasons.37 The concept of Hebrew as a national symbol seems to have been carried one step further: it maintained not only that the Jewish people have its own distinct language, but that its language, God's language, was superior to the other 'nations of the world'-the usual term in Jewish sources. The view which became prevalent in the second century B.C.E., that Hebrew, being God's language, was superior to all other languages, was, it seems, part of the cultural and political reaction to the hellenistic rule and culture which prevailed among segments of Jewish society and culture at the time, a reaction which culminated in the Hasmonaean revolt. The link between God's language and 'God's people', the 'chosen people', is proven clearly in the Hebrew text of the Testament of Naphtali, which emphasizes that when the languages were divided among the nations 'the holy language, the Hebrew language remained only in the house of Shem and Eber, and in the house of Abraham our father, who is one of their descendants'. After the rebellion has been quelled, God proceeds to send the angel Michael to ask all the nations whom they will choose to worship. Abram alone chose 'him who said, and the world was created.... Then the most high dispersed the nations, and apportioned and allotted to every nation its share and lot. And from that time, all the nations ofthe earth separated themselves from the Lord, blessed be he. Only the house ofAbraham remained with his Creator to worship him.' 38 34 Flusser, ibid., pp. 129-34. 35 S. Schwartz, 'Language, Power and Identity', Past and Present 148 (1995), pp. 3-47. 36 y Meshorer, Jewish Coins of the Second Temple Period, 1967), pp. 48-49. 37 Schwartz, pp. 20-30. 38 See above, nn. 20 and 21. transi. by 1. H. Levine (Tel Aviv, 314 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES The same tradition is expressed clearly in later Midrashic literature.39 National identity and language were so closely linked that 'Nation and Language'-umma velashon-became a hendiadys meaning 'nation'.40 The superiority of the 'people and language' of Israel appear in the Festival prayers, both in the central benediction of the Amidah and in the blessing on the wine-the qiddush-said at the beginning of the holiday: 'Blessed art thou God ... who has chosen us from all people and exalted us above all languages'. It may be suggested, therefore, that the concept of the primordial language was a direct consequence of the new national ideology which developed during the Second Temple period, or more specifically, during the early part of the Hasmonean era. This new national ideology had to face malicious allegations which were brought up against the Jews in certain hellenistic circles. The essence of this slander, first recorded by Manetho in the third century B.C.E and repeated by later sources,41 revolved around the idea that the Jewish people were expelled from Egypt along with others who were the cause of a pestilence that had overtaken the land. It is no accident that these allegations were brought up, according to Diodorus Siculus,42 by the entourage of Antiochus Sidetes (135/34 B.C.E.) at the time of his siege upon Jerusalem, its defeat, and the contamination of the Temple. Diodorus' version of the events is cited later by Tacitus and by Celsus.43 Among Celsus' allegations, we find an echo of the Jewish tradition concerning the language of the creation. Alongside other claims made concerning the shameful and humiliating past of the Jewish people, Celsus, according to Origen, claims that immediately upon leaving Egypt this people, who had until then spoken the language of Egypt, suddenly and all at once adopted the Hebrew language! 44 In ch. 7,45 when saying that if indeed a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew it must have been a miracle, Origen cites Psalm 81:5: 'This he established in Joseph as a testimony, when He went throughout the land of Egypt, where I heard a language I did not understand.' It may well have been that this quotation was used against the Jewish claim of 39 See the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum 11:1; 11:7-8. In Deut. 32:8 9 the PJ Targum remarks that when the world was divided amongst the seventy nations by the angels, while separating script and language in the generation of the confusion, he declared that the house of Jacob was his patrimony; this is amplified in Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer 24 (transl. by G. Friedlander; New York, 1965), pp. 176-77. 40 See e.g. MAvodah Zara 5:1; Mekhilta, Beshalah 1; bKetubot 61b. 41 Josephus, Contra Apionem, I, 73-91 apud M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. I (Jerusalem, 1974), pp. 62-86 (=Stern). On this matter see the comprehensive study recently published by P. Schaefer, Judeophobia (HUP, 1997) (=Judeophobia), pp. 15-33, where the different sources are surveyed and analyzed. 42 Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 34-45, apud Stern, vol. I, pp. 181-84; Schaefer, Judeophobia, pp. 22-26. 43 Tacitus in Stern, vol. II, p. 18, transl. on p. 25; Celsus: ibid., vol. II, p. 246, transl. on p. 277. 44 Origen, Contra Celsum, III, 6. 45 Origen, ibid THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 315 the eternity of their language.46 This is done, in fact, by Gregory of Nyssa47 who, as will be seen, objects to the claim of the primordial language; he, in fact, cites Celsus' opinion on the subject, and relies on this same passage. The claim that Hebrew was the language of creation, that was part of the new nationalist ideology, was answered by the pagan hellenistic world then accordingly: 'you were a group of contaminated and humiliated refugees, and your language was made up hastily upon leaving Egypt!' Hellenistic culture and the Greek language, however, were not the only opponents of this ideology. Another 'rival', the Aramaic language, existed within the Jewish community. Aramaic was a language spoken among wide portions of the population in Palestine from the Second Temple period onwards. Although scholars' opinions on the question how much, by whom, where and when Aramaic or Hebrew were spoken among Jews differ,48 there is no question as to the strong presence of Aramaic in Jewish circles. The Mishnah itself, written in Hebrew and asserting the survival of Jewish national identity despite the recent traumatic events, presupposes that, even in prayer, the use of Hebrew is not selfunderstood. Thus in Mish. Sota 7 we read: 'These may be said in any language: ... These must be said in the Holy Language: . . '.49 It goes on to explain the reason for this division, saying that prayers or formulas that were originally said in Hebrew-should be said in Hebrew, thus insinuating that special reason has to be given for insisting upon the original Hebrew text. Aramaic, in fact, had become the language of private prayer, much to the dismay of the Rabbis, who contested that 'one should never pray for his personal needs in Aramaic', supporting this by the saying that 'angels do not understand Aramaic' (bSota 33a).5° Aramaic nevertheless seemed to continue to be the language of prayer and personal supplication until the end of the Byzantine period.51 46 In Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, 32, ed. M. Margulies (New York and Jerusalem, 1993) (in Hebrew), vol. 2, pp. 747-48, there is a possible response to this allegation. There Rabbi Elazar Bar Qapara (late second century) is cited as saying that the children of Israel were rescued from Egypt because of four things; two of these are that they did not change their names into foreign ones, and that they did not change their language, and kept on speaking Leshon Haqodesh. This not only enhances the 'national' Jewish position concerning the language, but also may well negate the claim that Hebrew was formed only after the flight from Egypt. For the different versions of this Midrash, see S. Lieberman in D. Rosenthal (ed.), Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 129-30 (in Hebrew), 47 See below, n. 84. 48 For references to this discussion see the learned article, abundant in primary sources, by S. D. Fraade, 'Rabbinic Views on the Practice of Targum', in L. Levine (ed.), The Galilee in Late Antiquity (New York and Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 253-86; J. Barr, 'Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age', in W D. Davies (ed.), The Cambridge History of Judaism (Cambridge, 1989), vol. 2, pp. 79-114; idem,'Which Language did Jesus Speak?-Some Remarks of a Semitist', BJRL 53 (1970/1971), pp. 9-29; S. Schwartz, above, n. 35. 49 For a translation of the text see H. Danby, The Mishnah (Oxford, 1933), p. 300. 50 This is contested by others who bring cases where the intermediary divine voice (bat-kol) spoke in Aramaic, only to be rejected by the answer that it was, in fact, the angel Gabriel, who is famous for his knowledge of the seventy languages. 51 On this subject see J. Yahalom, 'Angels Do Not Understand Aramaic: On the Literary Use of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic in Late Antiquity', JJS 47 (1996), pp. 33-44. 316 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES Not only liturgy, but the Bible itself was being read at this period in Aramaic, as the early versions discovered in Qumran show. There are many references in Jewish sources to translating procedures. Translation from the Hebrew scriptures was made by a meturgeman, passage by passage. 52 Popular parts of the Passover Haggadah were read in Aramaic. In the Talmud Yerushalmi Hebrew and Aramaic are intermingled. The Beraita Dethumin, although written in Hebrew, is heavily intermingled with Aramaic.53 From the Second Temple period onwards, Aramaic had gained a status so dignified that some of the texts written in Aramaic were considered sacred.54 The ability to translate the Bible into Aramaic was greatly admired. Yonatan ben Uziel, the translator of the prophets into Aramaic, is recorded in tradition as the greatest of Hillel's eighty students (the meekest of these was Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai). He is said to have revealed God's secrets to men in order to diminish controversies among the people of Israel.55 These sayings show not only that his accomplishment was considered very prestigious, but that the text was not easily understood by the people, and that a correct and inspired translation was therefore of great value. The task of preservation and promotion of Leshon Haqodesh was therefore neither simple nor selfunderstood, and seems to have continued over centuries. In Palestinian literature it is emphasized that a father has an obligation to teach his son Hebrew.56 Elsewhere in Sifre Deut. it is said in the name of R. Meir (c. 150) that 'Anyone who lives in Eretz Yisrael, reads Shema' morning and evening and speaks in Leshon Haqodesh will have a part in the world to come'.57 Not all, apparently, were such adamant supporters of the promotion of the concept of Leshon Haqodesh. Thus, in bSanhedrin 38b Rav is cited as saying that Adam spoke Aramaic...'; his saying is based upon one word, Yaqru, to be found in Psalms 139:17, which is attributed to Adam and is best undestood in its Aramaic sense.58 In yMegillah 1:9, 1 Oa Rabbi Elazar (c 300) and Rabbi Yohanan argue over the meaning of 'One Language' in Gen. I 1:1: one says that they all spoke all seventy languages, while the other says that they spoke the language of God, Leshon Haqodesh. Fraade brings numerous other cases in which this approach, which pro52 See S. D. Fraade, above, pp. 253-65, 282-86. Halachic Inscription from the Bethshean Valley', Tarbiz 43 (1974/1975), pp. 88-158, esp. pp. 146-47. 54 See Fraade, above, p. 270-71, who cites M Yadaim 4:5; bMegillah 8b-9a. 55 bSukkah 28a; bMegillah 3a. 56 See Fraade, p. 269, who cites Sifre Deuteronomy 46, and parallels. He also mentions that this is not the case in Babylonian literature, where this obligation is omitted. 57 Ibid., p. 269, n. 40, citing Sifre Deut. 333 and parallels. For more examples and references see Fraade's article, pp. 269 ff. 58 He is opposed by Resh Laqish who says that it is Hebrew. It should be noted that Rav is a Babylonian amora, while his opponent Resh Laqish is Palestinian, as is noted by Fraade, ibid, p. 270, n. 41. This tradition appears also in Piskei Tosaphot, Megillah 1:23, which says: Aramaic was Leshon Haqodesh and not Hebrew. Hebrew is called Leshon Haqodesh because Abraham spoke (a language called) Hebrew, and that is Leshon Haqodesh, and it was given to Asshur who quit the generation of the confusion (dor haplagah)'. 53 J. Sussmann, A THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 317 motes multilingualism, is represented. Thus, for example, R. Jonathan of Beth Guvrin says that 'four languages are pleasant to use: Greek for song, Latin for battle, Syrian [i.e. Aramaic] for dirges, and Hebrew for speech (dibbur)'.59 Elsewhere, God is said to have revealed himself in Hebrew, Latin, Arabic and Aramaic,60 or in all seventy languages.61 In bShabbath 12b it is disputed whether the Torah was given in all languages or in Leshon Haqodesh only. It seems, therefore, that alongside the national and separatist approach there seems to have been a more universal cultural trend which was purported by those who saw the Hebrew language and culture as part of the more engulfing cultural world of the ancient Near East. It may thus be suggested that the concept of Leshon Haqodesh, which was conceived, in all probability, in Palestine at the time of the national awakening during the second century B.C.E., was strongly ingrained in Jewish national and cultural identity, yet time, place and circumstances produced different attitudes; some of these adhered to the basic concept, while others minimized or even ignored it, preferring a more pluralistic and tolerant concept which conceived Jewish culture as part of a wider linguistic and cultural milieu. The Christian Positions A survey of the Christian sources indicates clearly that these are to be divided into two main categories-the tradition of the Greek and Latin church fathers, commentators, and historians and that of the Syriac fathers, commentators and historians. The Greek and Latin Church Fathers, and later Byzantine sources who refer to the question of the primordial language, are almost unanimous in agreement that Hebrew was the language of creation. It is clear that they are familiar with many of the Jewish sources and traditions, and that they concur with them. The first reference to this question, although somewhat vague, is found in the pseudo-Clementine Recognitiones (between 211 and 231 C.E.), where it is stated that Hebrew was the only language in the world until the fifteenth generation 'when, for the first time, men set up an idol and worshipped it';62 surprisingly he does not mention the Tower of Babel at all.63 The confusion of languages was nevertheless clearly the result of a sin. Origen's words reflect a more thorough knowledge of the traditions. He says that all the people upon the earth had one divine language which was 59 The last probably referring to formal speech. See also Fraade's reference to the different functions of Hebrew and Aramaic, ibid., p. 275. Compare Augustine, In Ioannis Evangelium, 107, 4, CCSL, vol. 36 (Turnholt, 1954), p. 653. 60 Sifre Deut. 343 (33:2). 61 bSanhedrin 88b and parallels. See Fraade, p. 267, nn. 35-36. Recognitiones, 1, 30, in B. Rehm, Die Pseudoklementinen, 11: Rekognitionen in Rufins Ubersetzung (Berlin, 1965) (GCS 51), p. 25, transl. by T. Smith in A. Roberts and J. Donaldson (eds.), Ante-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh; repr. 1986), vol. 8, p. 85. 63 Recognitiones also seems to be familiar with the tradition of Jubilees about the angel who revealed himself to Abraham and 'taught him the knowledge of the Divinity; intimated to him the origin of the world, and likewise his end; showed him the immortality of the soul ...'; ibid., p. 26 (transl. p. 86); he does not mention in this case, however, that he taught him Hebrew. 62 318 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES preserved as long as they lived harmoniously in the land of the east. It was after they migrated from the east (to the land of Shinear, in order to build the tower) that they lost that divine language.64 'Those who preserved their original language continued, by reason of their not having migrated from the east, in possession of the east and of their eastern language. And let him notice, that these alone became the portion of the Lord, and his people who were called Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance .' 65 Origen is clearly citing here the same tradition, based upon Deut. 32:3, appearing in the Testament of Naphtali, as well as in the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and in Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer,66 which links closely the 'chosen people' with the 'divine language'. Another citation Origen uses to convey the same idea comes from the apocryphal book of The Wisdom of Solomon, 10:5: 'Moreover, the nations in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she found out the righteous and preserved him blameless unto God.' 67 Moreover, in chapters 5-8 of his treatise, Origen contends with Celsus' claim that the Hebrew language, along with the Jewish people, was formed hastily upon their departure from Egypt. This claim, with which the Jews have had to contend, is now rejected by none other than Origen, the church father, in defence of the Jewish claim.68 Origen thus seems not only to be very well acquainted with the Jewish traditions and claims, but also identifies with them fully and totally. Jerome, living in Bethlehem and translating the Old Testament from Hebrew into Latin, mentions almost in passing that Hebrew is omnium linguarum matrix.69 Augustine of Hippo, who wrote Latin, and unlike his predecessors Hilary, Ambrose and Jerome was not educated in the east, nevertheless seems to have gotten wind of this ongoing discussion. He, too, repeats the assertion that only one people remained untouched by the sin of Babel, this was 'the house of Heber, in which the primitive language of the race survived ... it was on this account thenceforth, named Hebrew'.70 It should be noted that the original name 'Eber, which appears in this form both in the Septuagint and in the Vulgate, is transformed here into Heber so that the connection between his name and the name Hebrews becomes self-evident. This change appears consistently in all the Greek and Latin sources, wherever this connection is made. Augustine, like Origen, chooses to emphasize strongly that this language was passed on to Abraham who could only pass it on to Jacob's line (as opposed to Esau), and that this chosen family was 'the godly seed remaining; ... as there can be no doubt that those among whom it was preserved were exempt from the punishment it embodied ... this is no small proof of 64 Origenes, Contra Celsum, c. 30; in P. Koetschau, Origenes Werke, vol. 2, GCS 3 (Leipzig, 1899), pp. 31-32, transl. by E Crombie in Ante-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh, n.d.), vol. 4, p. 556. 65 Ibid, c. 31, ibid., pp.32 33 (transl. p. 556). 66 See above, n. 40. 67 Origenes, c. 29, ibid, pp. 30-31 (transl. p. 556). 68 Ibid, vol. 1, GCS 2, pp. 206-207 (transl. p. 466-67). 69 Hieronymus, In Sophoniam, iii, 14/18, CCSL, vol. 76a, p. 708. This is repeated later (end of seventh to beginning of eighth century) by Bede, In Genesim, I, 22, 19-20, CCSL, vol. 118a, pp. 55-56. 70 Augustinus, De Civitate Dei, 16, c. 11, CCSL, vol. 48, pp. 513-14, transl. in P. Schaff(ed.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Michigan; repr. 1979), vol. 11, p. 317. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 319 the righteousness of the family'. Augustine, like Origen, is anxious to prove that the Hebrew language was the primordial tongue, which God chose to leave in the hands of the Hebrew people because they had not sinned. They were God's people.71 The concept of 'Heber' ('Eber) as the father of the Hebrew language and the Hebrew people was strongly emphasized by Greek church tradition. It appears in one of John Chrysostom's homilies,72 in Greek Catenae,73 and later in the Chronicles of George Cedrenos and lohannes Zonaras in the twelfth century.74 The tradition of the Book of Jubilees was also widespread. George Syncellos (d. post 810) recounts that the angel who spoke to Moses told him that he 'taught Abraham the Hebrew language which was spoken by all (the people of) the land from the time of the Creation'.75 Also widespread was the account that the language of creation was spoken by all living creatures until the Fall (Jubilees 3:28),76 mentioned also by George Syncellos,77 Cedrenos,78 and Zonaras.79 Greek and Latin Church Fathers chose to adopt the main Jewish position, declaring not only that Hebrew was the primordial tongue, spoken from the Creation until the confusion of languages, but that this language remained with the only people who had not sinned, and were God's remaining seed and his patrimony. This, of course, is not surprising, on two counts. First, if the People of Israel were loyal to God and therefore preferred by him, and were chosen to hold on to the primordial 'divine' language, then Christianity, the new, spiritual Israel, were their inheritors. Thus, supporting this concept meant in fact fortifying and strengthening the Christian position. The second, and the more crucial, claim to the subject under discussion is that Christianity, which,strove to be a world-embracing religion, did not identify itself unequivocally'in terms of language.80 Thus, although there is no doubt that 71 It is interesting to note that Augustine seems to be unaware of the fact that he himself appears to adopt a contradictory tradition in his tract In loannis Evangelium, x, 12 in CCSL, vol. 36 (Turnholt, 1954), p. 108, transl. in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 7, p. 73, where he cites the hellenistic tradition that Adam's name is made up of the Greek initials of the four points of the compass (see above). 72 Johannes Chrysostomos, Homilia in Cap. xi Genes, 30, 4, PG 53, p. 280. 73 CCSG, vol. 15, F. Petit, Catenae Graecae in Genesim et in Exodum, II: Collectio Coisliniana in Genesim (Brepols and Turnhout, 1986), p. 164. The commentary to this passage is taken from Diodore of Tarsus (d. 394), who was Chrysostom's teacher and a friend of Basil of Cappadocia. 74 Georgios Cedrenos, Compendium Historiarum, I, 22, PG 121, p. 50; he adds a linguistic proof, saying that Adam means man in Hebrew (some of his other examples are somewhat less convincing); Johannes Zonaras, Annales, PG 134, I, 21. Zonaras brings a linguistic proof, based on Josephus, saying that Adam comes from Hebrew adama, earth. 75 Georgios Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica, ed. A. A. Mosshammer (Leipzig, 1984), p. 11 2. 76 This is also mentioned by Josephus and Philo. See above, n. 19. 77 Ibid., I, 14. 78 Above, n. 74, 1, 9- 10. 79 Above, n. 74, I, 23. 80 On the concept of the equality of languages, see F J. Thomson, 'SS. Cyril and Methodius and a Mythical Western Heresy: Trilinguism-a Contribution to the Study of Patristic and Mediaeval Theories of Sacred Languages', Analecta Bollandiana 110 (1992), pp. 79-81, citing Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and others. The reference to Theodoret of Cyrrus seems to be somewhat misunderstood (ibid., p. 79) in this context, and see below, con- 320 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES the higher strata of society among Christians in the ancient hellenized east spoke and wrote Greek, there was understandably no concept or tradition of a Holy Language in Christianity Most indicative of this is the early translation of Christian liturgy into Syriac, Armenian and Ethiopian.81 Although certain idioms in the liturgy became fixed in all languages, these were eclectic, and did not relate to one holy language.82 Thus, while Jews were struggling to preserve their Holy Language, this did not seem to occupy Christians. Hellenized Christianity, although in fact showing clear preference for the Greek language, nevertheless strove to be a universal religion which accepted all people; without actively intruding upon their linguistic, cultural or even national identities, if there were such. It saw no problem, therefore, in accepting Hebrew as the primordial language, since it had no other candidate for this honourable post, nor was it interested in supporting any issue on a separatist linguistic or cultural ticket. Among the Greek church fathers there are, however, three important figures who take another stand in this matter. The first two, Eusebius of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, adhere to a rational position. Eusebius says that in the beginning people assembled in groups which spoke different languages; their language was at first confused and indistinct, and only gradually did these different languages take on the form of an ordered and intelligible means of communication.83 This is unquestionably a view which sides with the concept of language as a set of conventional signs. Gregory of Nyssa argues vehemently against the accepted position, claiming that 'human language is the invention of the human mind or understanding .... God, willing that men should speak different languages, gave human nature full liberty to formulate arbitrary sounds, so as to render their meaning more intelligible.'84 Gregory, the greatest theologian and philosopher among cerning Theodoret's attitude. 81 For example the translation of the liturgy of St James, which originated in Jerusalem, into several languages very early on. See B. C. Mercier, La Liturgie de St. Jacques, Patrologia Orientalis(=PO), 26/2 (Paris, 1946); A. Tarby, La Priere Eucharistique l'Eglise de de Jerusalem (Paris, 1972). See also the lectionaries of the church of Jerusalem in Armenian, Georgian and Christian Palestinian Aramaic: A. Renoux, Le CodexArmenien Jerusalem 121,PO, 35/1 (Brepols, 1969); 36/2 (Brepols, 1971); M. Tarchnisvili, Le Grand lectionnaire de de CSCO, vol. /'Eglise Jerusalem, 188-89, 204 205 (Louvain, 1959-1960); G. Garitte, Le Calendrier Palestino-Georgien du Sin. 34 (Bruxelles, 1958), pp. 418 19; C. Burkitt, 'The Old Lectionary of Jerusalem', JTS 24(1923),pp. 415-24. Indicative is the famous story about the Armenians and Sabas. The Armenians had their own chapel, and in fact did all the praying apart from the Eucharist itself in their own language; Sabas discovered that under this cover they made a crucial change in the liturgy; he then forced them to join the Greek liturgy under his supervision to prevent this happening again. This was, however, a question of dogma, not of language! See Kyrillos von Skythopolis, Vita Sabae, in E. Schwartz (ed.), Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gescichte der altchristlichen Literatur 49, 2 (Leipzig, 1939), pp. for transl. see Cyril of Scythopolis: The Lives of the Monks of Palestine, transl. by R. M. Price and annotated by J. Binns (Kalamazoo, 1991), 126-27. pp. 83 de La Preparation L. I, ed. et transl. J. Sirinelli and E. des Places (Paris, 1974), vol. 1, pp. 148-49. 84 Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium, lib. ii, ed. W Jaeger (Leiden, 1960), vol. 1, p. 300 (par. 254); trans]. in Answer to Eunomius' Second Book, transl. by M. Day in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Edinburgh; repr. 1988), vol. 5, p. 276. (Xssi&le) F. 82 111718; EusebeCesaree, evangelique, THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 321 the three fathers,85 raises here the well-known discussion amongst the ancient Greek philosophers on this matter, clearly taking a stand that language itself is a convention and not a natural, inherent or supernatural phenomenon. He does, however, reconcile this with the Biblical text and the Christian position. Naturally, mankind did speak one language before the people were scattered by God, as the Bible claims, but this was not Hebrew or any 'divine' language. Here Gregory surprisingly uses the old pagan argument that the Hebrew language was hastily improvised upon the Exodus from Egypt, bringing as proof once again Psalms 81:5.86 Language, claims Gregory, is a human phenomenon: 'to think it the essential point in piety to attribute the invention of words to God ... must it not be a proceeding of extreme folly so to neglect higher grounds of praise, and to magnify God on such as are purely human?' 87 'Moses, then, spoke his mother-tongue, and that in which he was educated. But he attributed these words to God, ... in order to give a clear representation of the Divine will .... 88 Here, Gregory clearly expresses the opinion of Socrates as brought in Cratylus, that words may be the human medium used to try and reproduce the fixed nature of things, but they could never do so perfectly.89 Eusebius and Gregory introduce into the discussion a contradictory position, originating in Greek philosophy, which thus far does not seem to have been represented. Yet, it is important to note that this is not done in order to push aside the Jewish claim as such, or to introduce a rival language into this discussion. Rather, it is their philosophical training which urges them to reject the somewhat mystical idea of the language of creation in general, and to take a rational and unique stand in this long-standing argument, which they choose to base upon Greek philosophy rather then upon eastern traditions. The third to take an outstanding position is Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393466). One of the most renowned exegetes in the east, he is the only Greek church father to support Syriac as a primordial language; a fact which at first, seems quite confusing and inconsistent. He bases his proof upon the etymology of the names of the primordial people: Adam is attributed to Syriac 'odamtho (earth), Qain to Syriac qenyono (property), Noa to Syriac nawho (rest), and Abel to Syriac 'eblo (mourning). On the other hand, he does not reject the Hebrew altogether, and ascribes to it a special status. Hebrew, according to Theodoret, is a holy language, which was given to Moses by God as an acquired language rather then as a natural language. In support of his claim, he says, children of the 'Hebrews' do not speak Hebrew naturally; rather, they speak the language of their native country. Only later are they taught Hebrew letters and are able to read the Hebrew Scriptures. To assist his claim, Theodoret, too, uses Psalms 81:5: 'I understood a language I did not know'. He then proceeds to undermine the common and accepted proof among the Greek fathers, that Hebrew comes from 'Heber', who alone was granted the 85 86 87 See J. Quaesten, Patrology, vol. 3, p. 254 55. On this claim, see above, nn. 44, 45. Above, n. 84, text pp. 303-304 (pr. 265); transl. p. 277. 88 Ibid., p. 302 (par. 260-61); transl. pp. 276-77. 89 Guthrie, Sophists (above, n. 2), p. 208; Cratylus, 421d. 322 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES privilege to hold on to the primordial language. If indeed, he says, Heber spoke Hebrew, then all his progeny, and many nations beside the Jewish people, should have spoken Hebrew. The Hebrew language is called so, in his opinion, because Abraham, on his way to Palestine, crossed the Euphrates. Hebra, he notes, in Syriac, means crossing. The discussion ends with a surprising assertion: 'it is superfluous', says Theodoret, to contend over this, since nothing in this matter is detrimental to the faith, whether we accept this [stand] or the other',90 thus declaring here outright that it is not a question of any religious import or consequence; yet he is definitely intrigued by it, no doubt because of its cultural and linguistic projections. It does not seem incidental that it is Theodoret who alone in Greek tradition chooses to promote Syriac as the primordial language. Theodoret's Syriac connections are well known. First, Theodoret's mother-tongue was Syriac. Moreover, whilst he was given the education of an upper-class hellenized Christian in Antioch, was well acquainted with classical literature and philosophy and wrote in fact in Greek only, he nevertheless retained his special connections with the Syriac-speaking countryside. Theodoret made no secret of his adoration of the crude and uneducated Syriac-speaking monks, living in the surroundings of Antioch, announcing their wonders in his Religious History,91 and was devoted to conducting his diocese, a task which no doubt required eloquence in Syriac besides other mundane skills and attitudes. This may well explain Theodoret's exceptional stand which claimed that Syriac, his mother tongue and the ancient tongue still spoken in his homeland, is the primordial language. The Position of the Syriac Fathers, Thinkers and Commentators An exception among the Greek church fathers, Theodoret's position is almost the rule amongst the Syriac writers. Leaning upon two great figures, Ephraem the Syrian and Theodore of Mopsuestia, Syriac writers are almost unanimous in their claim that Syriac was the primordial language.92 Although there is no direct quotation expressing Ephraem's opinion on this matter,93 this position is attributed to him in Syriac tradition. The well known 9 Theodoret of Cyrus, Quaestiones in Octateuchern, ed. N. E Marcos and A. Skenz-Badillos (Madrid, 1979), quaest. 60-62, pp. 56-58. 91 There are several places in which Theodoret refers specifically to the prevalence of the Syriac language in the monasteries and among the monks in Syria: the monk Macedonius speaks Syriac to two Byzantine generals and his words are translated by an interpreter into Greek (xiii, 7: transl. by R. M. Price, A History of the Monks of Syria; Kalamazoo, 1985, p. 103); God's message to Theodoret is sent in Syriac (xxi, 15; transl. p. 139); the holy man, Abraham, is invited to the Emperor's court in Constantinople and adored there although he 'did not even understand Greek' (xvii, 9: transl. p. 123). Theodoret admires the monk Baradatus who 'sometimes syllogizes better and more powerfully then those versed in the labyrinths of Aristotle' (xxvii,4; transl. p. 178). 92 I would like to thank Dr W Witakowski for the references to the main Syriac sources which he so kindly supplied me with. 93 It does not appear where it may be expected, in his commentary on Genesis 11: 7, where he says only that one people held on to the primordial language, but does not specify what people THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 323 tract, the Cave of Treasures, written in Syriac sometime between the fourth and sixth century, and attributed to Ephraem states not only that 'Syriac, which is Aramaic' (so the text), was the sole language spoken from Adam until the confusion of languages, but asserts openly that 'Syriac is the queen of all languages'.94 Clearly familiar with Jewish exegetic and apocryphal material, Midrash and Agaddah,95 as well as with the writings of the Greek church fathers, it then goes on to say that 'the ancient writers have commited an error in writing that the Hebrew language was prior, and they admitted this [bad] error herein into their writings. All languages upon the earth derive from Syriac and are tempered with it.'96 Michael the Syrian mentions Ephraem as a supporter of this same position.97 'Abd Isho' Bar Barikha, Bishop of Nisibis, writing at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century, cites Mar Ephraem in the scholia appended to the preface of his carmina on the Paradise of Eden: 'Mar Ephraem the Saint said that the Syriac language is the primordial language, and that this was the language in which God spoke with our father Adam, and this was the language spoken by people until the division of the languages. It continued until 'Eber and was handed down to Abraham; and when he crossed ('abar) the river he was called Hebrew ('ebroyo).'98 Syriac exegetical tradition, supporting the same opinion, is almost unanimous in its approach, claims and explanations. The four Syriac commentaries referring to this question are: the anonymous commentary of Diyarbakir 22 (first half of the eighth century); Theodore Bar Koni, The Book of Scholia (c. 791/792); Isho'dad of Merv (c. 850); and The Anonymous Commentary from the Mingana collection (ninth to tenth century).99 All of them menit is: see R. M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum, CSCO 152 (Louvain, 1955), vol. 153, p. 53. 94 Su-Min Ri, Le Caverne des tresors-les deux recensions syriaques, CSCO, vol. 486 (text), vol. 487 (transl.) (Louvain, 1987), ch. 24, text pp. 186-88, translation pp. 70- 72. 95 On the close ties between Jews and Christians in Mesopotamia and Edessa, and the familiarity of Christians with variegated Jewish material, see: S. Brock, 'Jewish Traditions in Syriac Sources', JJS 30 (1979), pp. 88 102; H. Drijvers, 'Jews and Christians at Edessa', JJS 36 (1985), pp. 88-102; M. Sed, 'Les hymns sur le Paradis de St. Ephrem et les traditions juives', Le Museon 81 (1968), pp. 455-501; T. Kronholm, Motifsfrom Genesis] 11 in the Genuine Hymns ofEphrem the Syrian (Uppsala, 1978), pp. 210-14. 96 Su-Min Ri (above, n. 94), p. 186 (the eastern version of the text). 97 Chronique de Michelle Syrien, ed. J. B. Chabot (Paris,1910), vol.4, p.10 (text); vol. 1(1899), p. 20 (transl.). 98 See H. Gismondi (ed. and transl. into Latin), Abd-Iesu Sobensis Carmina Selecta ex libro Paradisus Eden (Beirut 1888), p. 110. It is interesting to note that this is appended to his preface, where he sets out to defend the Syriac language; the latter, he complains, is conceived in his days as rough and unpolished in comparison to the highly acclaimed Arabic. He brings up the claim of the primordial language against this (see p. 4), and cites Ephraem as proof. 99 L. Van Rompay (ed.), Le Commentaire sur la Genese Exode 9, 32 du manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir22 (Louvain 1986), CSCO 483, pp.68-69 (text); 484, pp.88-89 (transl.) (=Van Rompay); Theodorus Bar Koni, Livre des scolies (recension de S&rt), transl. R. Hespel and R. Draguet (Louvain, 1981 1982), CSCO 431, pp. 112-13 (text); 432, pp. 126-27 (transl.) (=Theodore Bar Koni); J. M. Voste and C. Van Den Eynde (eds.), Commentaire d'Isho'dad de Merv sur l'Ancien Testament, 1: Genese (Louvain, 1950 1955), CSCO 126, pp. 134-36 (text); 156, pp. 146-48 324 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES tion that they are aware of the tradition that Hebrew was the primordial language; Isho'dad of Merv notes that this opinion is to be found in Jubilees and in Epiphanius (?): he cites this opinion fully, saying that the proof is in the Hebrew etymology of Qain, Abel, Methuselah, Peleg and 'Eber. Yet they all state that they hold onto the other opinion, that it was the Syriac. All but one, Theodore Bar Koni, refer this opinion back to the Interpreter, i.e. to Theodore of Mopsuestia.100 Yet, it is clear that Theodore bar Koni, too, derives from this same tradition. According to this tradition, the primordial language, in which God spoke to Adam, was 'pure and uncontaminated Syr- Theodore of Mopsuestia is, no doubt, a prestigious source to lean upon, but was this really his position? Unfortunately, Theodore's commentary on Genesis has not been preserved, and only several fragments of it have reached us,102 no doubt due to his excommunication by the Church of Byzantium. What interest did he have in promoting Syriac? It may be, that just like Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Theodore too may have had strong sympathies for the Syriac language. After all, just like Theodoret, he was born and reared in the vicinity of Antioch, and like him had close ties with the monastic community in the area. He spent a considerable part of his life living in a monastery in the area, where the main language of speech was undoubtedly Syriac. It seems quite plausible, therefore, that although both Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Theodore of Mopsuestia were highly educated, wrote in Greek and played an active role in the hellenized Christian community, they nevertheless had special sympathies for their mother tongue and for the local culture. Theodore Bar Koni, Isho'dad of Merv, Bar-Hebraeus and Solomon of BasrahW03 all bring as proof the above-mentioned tradition that Abraham was called Hebrew not because of the language he spoke, but because he had crossed ('abar) the Euphrates. 104 According to this claim, Abraham, having originated in Mesopotamia, must have spoken the local tongue, i.e. Syriac or Aramaic, which was the primordial language. It was only after he had 'crossed the river', that the Hebrew language was formed. In fact, Hebrew was not one of the seventy (or seventy-two according to the other version 105 ) languages which were given to the people on earth when the languages were confused. It was not a pure language, but a mixture of the Syriac originally spoken by (trans].) (=Isho'dad); A. Levene, The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis: From a Syriac MS on the Pentateuch (London, 1951), pp. 7-8 (text); p. 86 (transl.) (=Levene). 00 Isho'dad, transl. p. 147; Van Rompay, transl. pp. 88-89; Levene, transl. p. 86. 101 Levene, p. 86; Isho'dad, p. 147; Van Rompay, p. 89. 102 See Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3, pp. 401-02. 103 Theodore Bar-Koni, p. 127; Isho'dad of Merv, p. 147; Barhebraeus, Scholia on the Old Testament, ed. M. Sprengling and W C. Graham (Chicago, 1931), part 1, p.45; Solomon Metropolitan of Basrah, The Book of the Bee, ed. E. A. W Budge (Oxford, 1886), p. 42. 104 This claim relates in fact to a Jewish tradition found in Ber. Rabbah 41:8, which in fact supports the prevalent Jewish claim about the primordiality of the Hebrew language: Rabbis said that he is called 'ivri because 'he was from across the river' (me'ever hanahar), and because he spoke in the Hebrew language (leshon 'ivri). 105 See L. Ginzberg, Legends, vol. 5, p. 194. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 325 Abraham, and Canaanite-the language spoken in the land of Canaan; an interesting philological concept, it must be admitted! In support of this claim, Isho'dad of Merv and Theodore Bar Koni add that even the primordial language, the Syriac language itself, which was being spoken in Mesopotamia, has changed and altered throughout the times. They state, in fact, that while the Syriac 'which migrated' west to Homs, Apamea and Edessa was more authentic, that spoken in Babylon was the most corrupt due to foreign influences upon the language. This reflects well the purist view behind the claim of the primordiality of the Syriac. The existing Syriac dialects were contaminated by foreign influences, and although they succeeded the primordial language, even they, the 'unrivalled' inheritors of the primordial language, were no longer as pure and perfect as the primordial Syriac had been. Thus, it is apparently unanimously conceived by Syriac writers that Hebrew does not originate from 'Eber, but in fact emphasizes the fact that the Hebrew language was formed only after Abraham had crossed the river, and thus could not be the primordial language. It was a 'pure and polished' Syriac idiom, which has since deteriorated, that was God's language. It is therefore Syriac which, among the languages of its day, was the closest to God's language. Another problem which the supporters of the Syriac claim cannot ignore is the language of the Scriptures. If Syriac is the primordial tongue, why then were the Scriptures given in Hebrew? The explanation for this is quite simple: it is not because it is a noble or rich language-in fact, it is quite limitedbut rather because the Scriptures were given to the Jews, and were therefore written in their language;106 Isho'dad of Merv107 cannot resist the temptation to add that the Jews, being stupid and heavy of mind, could not learn another language. An interesting Christian Arabic catena attributed to Hippolytus, which is undoubtedly from a Syriac background and is of a polemic anti-Jewish character,108 solves this problem in a different manner. In the introduction to the text it says thus: 'God ... sent it down in revelation in the Syriac tongue of the Targum, and the Seventy translated it into Hebrew, the tongue of His people and the language of His nation'.109 This is the only source, as far as I know, which dares to challenge the fact that the Old Testament was given in Hebrew. Jacob of Edessa's (c. 640-708) stand concerning the question of the primordial language proves to be an exception to the prevalent opinion in Syriac literature. Basing his opinion on Clement and on Eusebius of Homs (c. 300 c. 359), he states unequivocally that Hebrew was the primordial language, and not Syriac or Aramaic. He is well aware of the dominant opinion, responding only that even remarkable and famous men have erred in this matter.110 Quite 106 Theodore Bar Koni, loc. cit.; Isho'dad of Merv, loc. cit.; Bar-Hebraeus, op. cit., p. 47. 7 Loc. cit. 108 M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, 'Tradition and Religious Authority: On a Neglected Christian Parallel to the Mishna Abot 1, 1-10', HUCA 66, pp. 169-203. The dating of this text is not agreed upon, but it is clearly related to works like The Cave of Treasures and to Ephraem, as well as to Jewish material; see ibid., p. 199. 109 Ibid., p. 188. 110 Surprisingly, he attributes the claim that 'ivri comes from 'one who has crossed the river' to 326 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES astonishing is the fact that Jacob of Edessa bases his claim on the tradition of Bereshit Rabbah, cited above, that only in Hebrew is the word 'issha (woman) derived directly from 'ish (man). Jacob's exceptional position is mentioned by Michael the Syrian... (who adds also the name of John of Litarba as supporter), and is repeated again by Bar Hebraeus;112 Michael however prefers to accept the prevalent opinion which he attributes to Mar Ephraem and to Basil the great (!), saying that Aramaic was the primordial language, and adhering to the common etymology of 'ivri as he who had crossed the river. The prevalent view in Syriac literature, which boldly and openly opposes the accepted opinion among the Greek and Latin Church Fathers, is indicative of the strong drive to develop and cherish a particular Syriac cultural and historical identity, and to prove this entity's superiority and uniqueness. There are other statements in Syriac literature which attest to this claim of superiority adopted by Syriac speakers towards the other ancient and prevalent languages in the ancient Near East. In the Cave of Treasures it is claimed (quite unconvincingly, it must be noted) that Syriac, in all the Syriac texts, tends from the left towards the right, so as to approach God's right side and not to be counted amongst the sons of the left, i.e. the sinister; whilst Greek, Hebrew, and Latin tend towards the left.113 A claim to Syrian superiority appears once more in chapter 53,11. 22-26 of the same composition, where the author takes pride in the fact that no Syrian was amongst the crucifiers of Jesus. Herod, he says, was Greek, Pilate was Roman and Caiaphas was Hebrew, that is why the sign on the cross was written in those three languages, while Syriac was excluded."14 The pride here is quite clearly based on the linguistic and cultural, almost national, affiliation rather then on a religious one. It thus seems that Christians who are Greek or Latin speakers are not as privileged as Syriac-speaking Christians, who not only hold on to the primordial language but sit on God's right, and are completely exonerated of any relation to the crucifixion of Jesus. The Syrians, as a 'nation', according to this view, are therefore more authentic, closer to God, superior to other nations and even, so it seems, better Christians a priori. Jacob of Edessa's support of the position of the Greek and Latin church fathers, and his opposition to the accepted view of Syriac writers, may well reflect another trend among Syriac writers and thinkers. While the prevalent a misunderstanding of the Greek perates 'he who crossed'-as Euphrates. I l Chronique de Michel le Syrien, bc. cit. (above, n. 97). 112 Gregorius bar Hebraeus, Chronicon Syriacum, ed. P. Bedjan (Paris, 1890), pp. 8-9 (text); The Chronography of Gregory Abu'l Faraj .. ., ed. E. A. W Budge (London, 1932), p. 8 (transl.). 113 Su-Min Ri (above, n. 94), pp. 174-77. It is quite interesting that the Georgian translation emends this; although it notes that Syriac was the primordial language, and defeats all the other languages, it nevertheless goes on to say much more correctly that while the Syrians and the Saracens write from the right towards the left, the writing of the Greeks and the 'Roman' (i.e. Latin) speakers goes in front, and resembles God's right, so that they become children of the right of the Lord and not of the left (sinister). See J. P. Mahe (transl.), Mearat Gazze, la caverne des tresors-version georgienne, CSCO vol. 527 (Louvain, 1993), p. 44. Here the Greeks and Romans are thus awarded the preferred position. 114 On the abundant traditions concerning the question of the languages used on the cross according to John 19:20, see E J. Thomson, above, n. 80, pp. 62-122. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 327 opinion represents the drive to develop and cherish a particular Syriac cultural and historical identity, the other trend seems to belittle and diminish this concept in favour of the hellenistic church tradition, which had gradually eclipsed Syriac literature especially in matters of theology and religion.115 It may thus be suggested that although Syriac thought and literature became progressively more and more influenced by Greek culture, the mainstream was nevertheless resolved to preserve and enhance its special cultural, linguistic and historical identity. It may be that the existence of such a strong identity actually allowed the secure penetration of Greek culture, which, while influencing Syriac culture, did not overtake it. Thus, Tatian, active in the second half of the second century and writing in Greek, was clearly threatened by any penetration of Greek culture. He was intent on proving that Syriac culture, as well as its neighbouring Eastern cultures (Jewish, Phoenician and Egyptian), were superior to hellenic culture."16 Five hundred years later, although much influenced by Greek language and hellenistic culture which permeated Syriac Christianity through the hellenistic Christian world, the existence of Syriac literature and Syriac culture was nevertheless assured. Yet, Syriac writers still felt that they had to defend their culture in face of 'cultural chauvinism of the Greek speaking world', as S. Brock put it,117 citing Severus of Nisibis, who complains that the Greeks pretend to have fathered all scientific knowledge, ignoring the science of the Babylonians, who were of course Syrians." 8 The words of both Tatian and Severus of Nisibis show how strongly Syrians felt concerning the antiquity and greatness of their ancient culture. The claim to the primordiality of the Syriac was an important element in the enhancement of a proud Syriac identity, separate from the hellenized Christian culture. It remains to be asked whether the withdrawal of the Jacobites, or Syrian Orthodox, from the Byzantine church following Chalcedon was not spurred on by such feelings;"l9 and on the other hand, whether the separation from the Byzantine Church did not enhance and nourish these views and feelings. It would seem logical that this was at least partly the case since the withdrawal of the majority of Syriac-speaking believers from the Greek-speaking church must have encouraged the need to develop a separate identity, independent of the Greek-speaking world. This should however be investigated further. In addition, Christian Syriac identity may have been prodded and stirred up even before the growing influence of hellenistic culture, by the notable pres115 See S. Brock, 'From Antagonism to Assimilation: Syriac Attitudes to Greek Learning', in N. Garsoian et al. (eds.), East of Byzantium: Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period (Washington, 1982), pp. 17-34 (repr. in S. Brock, Syriac Perspectives on Late Antiquity, Variorum, 1984). 116 Oratio ad Graecos, ed. E. Schwartz (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 4/1) (Leipzig, 1888), pp. 31-39; transl. in Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, vol. 2, transl. by J. E. Ryland (Edinburgh; repr. 1983), pp. 77-80. 117 See Brock (above, n. 15), p. 24. 1 " Ibid, pp. 23-24, citing F Nau, 'La Cosmographie au vii siecle chez les Syriens', Revue de l'Orient Chretien 5 (1910), pp. 248-50. 119 This claim which was made earlier by Stein, was totally rejected by A. H. M. Jones in his article 'Were Ancient Heresies National or Social Movements in Disguise?', Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 10 (1959), pp. 280-98. I believe it should be reconsidered at least partly. 328 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES ence of Jews and Jewish traditions which permeated the atmosphere in many important cultural centres in Syria and Mesopotamia. Syriac writers were intimately familiar with Jewish traditions on the question under discussion, and opposed them adamantly most of the time. This may well be due to the close contacts which induced in their turn strong competition between Jews and Christians in the great centres of Mesopotamia and Syria, and perhaps also to the fact that at least in the early period not few of those newly converted to Christianity were Jews. Hebrew and Aramaic were the only languages of that ancient world which survived and were part of a living culture and identity. It could thus be easily understood that Syriac Christians could not accept the claim of Hebrew as a primordial language without feeling that they are betraying their ancient language and culture and losing to their Jewish competitors. Yet it should be noted that in the case of both Jewish and hellenistic culture, Syriac Christian culture on one hand absorbed and accepted, and on the other insisted on holding on to its distinct Syriac identity. In contrast, hellenized Christianity did not compete over the title of the primordial language, nor did it feel that its identity was threatened by it. It was secure enough in its position as the successor of the Chosen People, as Verus Israel on one hand, and as a successor of the pagan hellenistic culture which had been adapted to Christianity.120 Morever, it preferred to preserve the traditional hellenistic universalistic image, which accepted, integrated and incorporated the different cultural traditions and identities within its realm. This was true too for western Christianity. The uninvolved attitude towards the question of the primordial language is well attested by the famous encyclopedist Isidore of Seville, who writes both that Hebrew is the most ancient language in the world and that it is the mother of all languages,121 yet in the same breath ascribes the Hebrew alphabet to Moses,122 and that of the Syrians and Chaldeans to Abraham.'23 Yet, when he is obliged to answer the question directly he says only that some say that there was one language before the confusion, while others believe that God spoke to each nation in its own language, choosing not to take sides in this matter. In the world to come, he says, relying on I Cor. 13:8, no language will be spoken.124 l'Hellenisme 120 P. Lemerle, 'Le Sort de profane Byzance pendant les trois premiers de 1'empire', in Le Premier Humanisme Byzantine (Paris, 1971), pp. ff.; 43 J. and H. Marrou, The Christian Centuries, vol. 1: The First Six Hundred Years (London, 1964), pp. 12830, R. L. Fox, Pagans and Christians (New York, 1987), pp. 304-08; W H. C. Frend, The siecles Danielou 181-95; Rise of Christianity (London, 1984), pp. 554-55. 121 Isidori Hispalensis Episcopi Etymologiae I, 3, 4, ed. W M. Lindsay (Oxford 1989). 122 This motive appears already in Jewish hellenistic literature. In the middle of the second tury B.C.E. Eupolemus claims that Moses was the first wise man, and ascribes to him the invention of the alphabet before all other scripts. See Eusebius, Praep. Evan., ix, 26, 1. It is well in line with the claim of Hebrew being the primordial language. Abraham's special role is emphasized by Pseudo-Eupolemus, who was not Jewish. See Eusebius, on see Y ihidb, ix, 17;Ps.-Eupolemus, Gutman, The Beginnings of Jewish Hellenistic Literature (Jerusalem, 1963), vol. 1, pp. (in cen- Hebrew). 123 Ibid., 24 Ibid. 95-108 c. cit.; 56 v, 39, 6. ix, 2. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 329 Christian Arabic Traditions As already noted in the opening paragraph of this paper, the theme of the primordial language continued to play an important part in defining identities in the ancient Near East. This can be clearly seen in Christian Arabic sources. None of the Christian Arabic sources exhibit any special attitude towards the Arabic language, a fact which denotes that it served as a practical vehicle of communication only. The Arabic translation of the Cave of Treasures (Kitdb al-Majel ),125 which was no doubt accepted in Monophysite circles, follows the original Syriac text, saying that Syriac is the primordial language. It is however interesting to note that it adds that 'it is said that it was Aramaic126 and Chaldean', thus linking Syriac again with the ancient Babylonian culture.127 The Melkite historian Agapius b. Mahbiub (tenth century) in his book Kitaib al-'Unwain says that Hebrew was the primordial tongue, bringing as proof the traditional claim of the Greek fathers that 'Eber did not participate in the sin, and was therefore the only one to be awarded the use of primordial language-Hebrew, which was called after him. The use of this tradition in Melkite circles, who were dependent almost solely upon the Greek church fathers, is not surprising. A bit more surprising is the position taken by Eutychius (Sa'id b. Batriq), the Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria in the tenth century, who confers the primacy upon the Greek language, something which even the Greek church fathers had not considered. Thus, when explaining Genesis 11:7, he says that 'there are those who say that their language was Syriac, other people say that it was Hebrew; there are those who say that it was Greek, and, in my opinion, they are right, because the Greek language is more learned, it is ampler and broader then Syriac and Hebrew'.128 Eutychius' position seems to reflect the process which the leadership of the Melkite church had undergone in the East: on one hand, its spoken and written language was Arabic, as Eutychius' chronicle itself indicates, yet the language of liturgy in this church, which belonged to the Byzantine Orthodox Church, was much slower to change; in the main churches Greek was still used,129 and although knowledge of Greek was fast diminishing it was still considered the sublime language of the church fathers, and the language of the educated churchman.'30 In Melkite circles, Syriac never seems to have attained a special status such as it had attained among the Monophysites. It is therefore all the more in125 A. Battista and B. Bagatti, La Caverna dei Tesori (Jerusalem, 1979), pp. 32-33 (in Arabic); p. 64 (Italian transl.). 126 This word appears in a distorted manner as Rasanf instead of Ramamn, since the Arabic copyist, already not familiar with the word, easily replaced the sdd with the mfm. 127 This is, in fact, an embellished and incorrect translation of the Syriac text 'From Adam until that time, there was one language (only); ... Syriac which is Aramaic'. 127129 Sa-id b. Batriq, Kitaib al-Ta'rTkh, ed. Cheikho (Beirut, 1906), p. 16. See e.g. the Typicon of the Church of Jerusalem in the eleventh century, ed. PapadopoulosKerameus, in Analekta hierosolymitikes stachoulogias, vol. 2 (St Petersburg, 1894). 130 On this subject see M. Levy-Rubin, 'Society, Language and Culture in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem: Leadership versus Community', in A. Cameron and L. Conrad (eds.), Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, vol. 3: Patterns of Communal Identity in the Late Antique and Early Islamic Near East (forthcoming). 330 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES teresting to note that Arabic-speaking Christians of the Melkite community in Palestine were so proud of their ancestral dialect of Aramaic that they proclaimed it was the primordial language. The author of a Christian Palestinian Arabic manuscript, written in 1264, cites a tradition according to which Noah visited the Garden of Eden with his family. He brought back with him many treasures, amongst which were included 'holy books written by Adam in Syriac-Palestinian writing, that is the language in which the Lord conversed, and the language of his speech ... this was the language of Adam and all his sons; other commentators have claimed that [this language] was Hebrew because of God's words to Moses, but this is not so'.131 This dialect of Aramaic (called by scholars Christo-Palestinian Aramaic or CPA 132 ), which was spoken by the local Melkite community during the Byzantine period in Palestine, served mostly for liturgical and other ceremonial purposes throughout the Early Muslim Period when Arabic became the prevalent language of speech.'33 It should be noted that this dialect never managed to be much more then a local dialect of speech into which important literary pieces were translated, and seems to have never really become a vehicle of independent and original literary expression of the local CPA-speaking community. It is thus especially surprising to find such a local-patriotic expression so late in the day, when this dialect was in fact taking its last breaths. Stating that 'Palestinian-Syriac was the language in which God spoke to Adam' was undoubtedly a declaration concerning the linguistic and cultural identity of this community in face of the Greek-oriented Melkite leadership. Thus, linguistic and cultural identities could be typified in the same community by the question of the primordial language. Muslim Traditions The concept that Hebrew and Aramaic (or Syriac) were both ancient languages which contested over the title of the primordial language was so deeply embedded that it found its way into Muslim tradition as well. Not surprisingly, it was Syriac-the ancestral language of the Christians living in the important Muslim centres, which was still being spoken by them and was held in high esteem as the primordial language-which gained primacy among the Muslims. Ibn al-Nadim (end of tenth century), who was well acquainted with Christian literature, cites in Kitab al-Fihrist134 Theodore 'the Interpreter' (i.e. Theodore of Mopsuestia) as saying that God spoke to Adam 131 Sinai arab. 391, fol. 51. M. Bar-Asher, Palestinian Syriac Studies: Source- Texts, Traditions, and Grammatical Problems in Palestinian Syriac (PhD thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976; in Hebrew with an English summary). See also a recent grammar of CPA by C. Muller-Kessler, Grammatik des christlich-paldstinische-aram3ischen, Teil 1: Schriftlehre, Lautlehre, Formenlehre, Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik (Hildesheim, Zurich and New York, 1991). 133 See the present author's article: 'Arabization versus Islamization in the Palestinian Melkite Community during the Early Muslim Period', Sharing the Sacred: Religious Contacts and Conflicts in the Holy Land, First-Fifteenth Centuries CE., eds. A. Kofsky and G. Stroumsa 132 (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 149-62. 114 Ibn al-Nadim, Kitab al-Fihrist, ed. G. Fliugel (Leipzig, 1872), p. 12. THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 331 in the Nabath dialect, which is purer than the Syriac dialect. Ibn al-Nadim goes on to explain that 'Nabati is the dialect spoken by villagers, it is a broken (dialect of) Syriac, and its pronounciation is not right'. There are others, he continues, who say that it is the written classical Syriac which is the pure dialect, while still others believe that it was the contemporary spoken Syriac of his day that was used by God when he spoke to Adam. When writing about the Hebrew language, Ibn al-Nadlim exhibits his wide knowledge of the sources. He says'35 that he 'read in some of the old books that the first who wrote Hebrew was 'Abir b. Shalikh (i.e. 'Eber), and he placed it (this writing) among his people'. Yet, he immediately goes on to quote Theodore's opinion saying that the Hebrew language is derived from the Syriac, and it was only called Hebrew after Abraham had crossed the Euphrates. Ibn al-Nadim is therefore acquainted with both traditions, and is well versed in the prominent opinion among Syriac Christians of his day that Syriac was the primordial language, and that Hebrew was a language which derived from the Syriac and was formed only in Abraham's day. What is especially interesting is that he is aware of the internal argument amongst Syriac Christians themselves concerning the exact Syriac dialect which served as the primordial language, and was thus the pure dialect (see above). Ibn al-Nadim does not contest the special status of the Syriac, nor does he bring any contradicting traditions on behalf of the Arabic language. Tabarl too is faithful to the Syriac tradition. He notes twice that Syriac was the language spoken in the world before the confusion of languages,136 and mentions that Abraham's first language was Syriac until he crossed the Euphrates."37 The same tradition is recorded also by Mas'iid1.138 Ibn Khalduin relates the common belief concerning the Syrian script, used by the Nabateans and Chaldeans. 'Ignorant people', he says, 'often think that because the Nabateans and the Chaldeans were the most powerful nations (in antiquity), and the (Syrian script) is of great antiquity, it is the natural script (whereas all other scripts are coventional ones).' He himself, however, typically rejects this thought: 'This is a fanciful vulgar idea. No action resulting from choice is a natural one.'"39 The traditions concerning the primordiality of the Syriac were so well known that even Muslim Hadith tradition could not ignore them in favour of the Arabic. Thus, there is a tradition saying that God's injunctions were dictated by Jibril and written down by Adam in Syriac.140 Other traditions 35 Ibid., p. 14. See Tabari, Annales I, ed. M. J. De Goeje (Leiden, 1879), pp.220,322, transl. W M. Brinner in The History of al-Tabari, vol. 2 (New York, 1987), pp. 18, 108. 37 Ibid., p. 347; transl. p. 128. 138 Al-Mas%&di, Murfij al-Dhahab, ed. Ch. Pellat (Beyrouth, 1966), vol. 1, p. 260, par. 530; vol. 2, p. 260, par. 1141. 139 Ibn Khaldun, al-Muqaddima, in Kitab al-'Ibar (Beirut, 1956), vol. 1; p. 1025; for translation see F Rosenthal (transl.), The Muqaddimah (Princeton, 1967), p. 283; for reference to the antiquity of the Syrians, see also ibid., vol. 2, p. 9. 140 See M. J. Kister, 'Adam: A Study of Some Legends of Tafsir and Hadith Literature', in J. L. Kraemer (ed.), Israel Oriental Studies, vol. 13 (Brill, 1993), p. 118. 136 332 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES report that the secret language which God taught Adam was Syriac,141 and that God taught Adam the names in Syriac in order to hide from the angels the knowledge thus acquired. 142 The primordial language was not only the first, pure language of God. It also had an aura of the supernatural and the esoteric, of secrecy, mystery and magic.'43 This is well recorded by Ibn Khaldiin, who says that 'since the Syrians were the first among the creatures everything ancient or natural was attributed to them such as script, and language, and witchcraft.' 144 Curses are written in Hebrew and in Syriac; illiterates may speak something which resembles Syriac and Hebrew;145 and when the Holy Spirit descends people start speaking Syriac and Hebrew. In other cases those inspired may speak a medley of words sounding like Syriac or Arabic; yet it is a language of magic and sorcery.146 This strong tradition bears, in fact, an authentic historical touch regarding the ancient cultures and languages of the east in antiquity. Nevertheless, it does not remain unanswered. Muslim society attributed a special status to the Arabic language, the language of the Qur'an, which is stylistically and rhetorically a creation of perfect harmony which cannot be imitated.147 The attribution of primordiality to the Arabic language is thus called for. 'Abd al-Malik b. Hablb, cited by Kister, reports that: 'Adam descended from Paradise speaking Arabic because Arabic was the language of God, of the angels, and the people of Paradise'. He supports this by the words of Salman al-Fdrisi, who indeed links this to the Qur'an, saying 'You should love the Arabs because of three things: your Qur'an and your prophet are Arab, and your language in Paradise will be Arabic'.148 Adam was also the first to compose poetry; his verses were composed in Arabic.149 Syriac traditions concerning the primordial language were however so strong that they had to be faced and contended with. The solution was elegant, one must admit: Adam had spoken Arabic in Paradise; after the expulsion he spoke Syriac (which was according to some deteriorated Arabic, in fact). When Adam repented he went back to speaking Arabic.'50 The Arabs, like the Syrians, could not ignore the claims of their earlier predecessors. Yet, just like them the strong drive to prove the superiority of their culture and language created once more a new claim, this time in favour of the Arabic. It should be noted however, that at the same time there existed many traditions which were pluralistic and stated that God gave Adam the letters of all the 141 142 Ibid., Ibid p. 140. 143 I. Golziher, 'Linguistiches aus der Literatur der muhammadenischen Mystik', der deutsche morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 26 (1872), pp. 764-85. 44 Ibn Khaldiin, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 134. 45 Golziher, op. cit., p. 771. 146 Ibid, 147 See pp. 774-75. El 2, S.V. I'djaz. 148 See Kister, ibid., p. 140, and n. 144. 149 Ibid, p. 118. Ibid., pp. 11 8-19, 140. ' Zeitschrift THE LANGUAGE OF CREATION OR THE PRIMORDIAL LANGUAGE 333 alphabets, and that Adam was well versed in many languages,151 or that God taught Adam all languages so that he could speak with all his sons.152 The question of the primordial language, examined throughout time, reveals the development of different cultural identities in the ancient Near East, and divulges the fluctuations and changes which they undergo. Thus, the growth of a Jewish national identity is accompanied by the declaration that Hebrew is the primordial language, while a more pluralistic and universal approach which develops later within Judaism denies the existence of one primordial tongue and prefers the pluralistic tradition proclaiming all seventy languages as primordial. The hellenized Christian world adopts a composite attitude: while supporting the claim of Hebrew as the primordial language to prove that Christianity is the successor of the 'Chosen People', it does not use it to promote one ethnic, cultural or national identity, as in the Jewish case, but on the contrary, chooses to enhance the pluralistic character of both hellenistic and Latin Christianity. This is not the case with Syriac Christianity: when proclaiming Syriac as the primordial language, it is, in fact, intent on defining a separate Syriac cultural and linguistic identity, separating itself from hellenistic Christianity on one hand, and competing over the title of primordiality with its Jewish neighbours on the other. Finally, Muslim Arabs, latecomers in this discussion, must make a special place for themselves among these other cultures which have been claiming the special status of primordiality for a long time. These, too, choose at times the more pluralistic view, which accepts ancient traditions concerning the antiquity of Syriac and Hebrew, or otherwise believe that Adam was indeed versed in all languages; yet in Muslim tradition too, the approach which chooses to enhance the superiority of the Arabs and their language is quite eminent. In fact, it seems that the concept of I'jaz suggests that Muslims perceived their linguistic identity as a central vehicle in promoting and emphasizing their cultural superiority. The question of the primordial language is thus a very loaded question, reflecting in fact the views of the participants concerning their cultural, ethnic and at times national identities, and their outlook concerning the relationship between the different cultural entities living together through time in the ancient Near East. It may be used to enhance and support the formation of separate and defined identities, claiming them to be special or superior, or, on the contrary, to proclaim a universalistic and pluralistic approach, placing all nations and languages on an equal footing with a view to harmonious and non-competitive relations. 118. Ibid.,p. 140. 151 Ibid, p. 152