Política estatal de Vivienda

on behalf of the editors

There have been seven years between the appearance of the third and the present fourth fascicle of the Lexicon. And when one considers the extent of the fourth fascicle, with nearly 600 pages, the amount of working time that has been spent on it can properly be understood.

In general it maintains the procedures of the earlier fascicles, especially those of the third fascicle, but it should be noted that there are now fuller discussions of questionable points of detail, especially those concerning uncertain etymologies and interpretations of particular Biblical passages. In these cases the results of individual research (insofar as they could be understood) have been summarized and assessed. Naturally it was not always possible to make a clear decision whether one conclusion we had seen should be adopted in favour of another.

In addition we have continued the practice (already begun in the third fascicle) of

emphasisizing the connections or idiomatic expressions of the key word. These expressions will provide the reader with the widest and most exhaustive information about the connections of a noun with particular verbs.

Zürich, August 1990

from the third edition (final remarks)

by

Benedikt Hartmann

dictionary is stamped with its author’s personality. This is as true for the original Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros by Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner (KBL) as for the revised edition by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, Hebräisches und Aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament (HAL). The chosen scheme (or profile as it is sometimes now called) tends to restrict the freedom of the compiler. For the whole of HAL (and also in part for KBL) every entry consisted of four parts of explanation and discussion.

1. Etymology: The data which became available from the cognate languages and which we could utilize as HAL moved towards completion was essentially far better than what had been available for KBL. It benefited from new dictionaries like DISO for the ancient Semitic languages, AHw. and CAD for Akkadian, and MdD for Mandaic.

2. Forms: All forms of words attested in the Old Testament were recorded in the appropriate entry.

3. Meaning: Biblical references were collected according to the range of meaning for each entry.

4. Bibliography: Under these three headings we were able frequently to provide detailed references to scholarly literature which supported particular suggestions and helped the reader towards further research.

At the beginning of the project certain details had not been decided or identified as problems and so it was only later that solutions were proposed: dies diem docet.

When he began his work on the dictionary what interested Ludwig Koehler (1880-1956) most were the real life situations behind the vocabulary of the Old Testament. They fascinated Koehler, with his imaginative and inventive mind, the preacher who cared for the souls of the people, the one who took his official part in life to the widest extent. To attack the substance of these words head on demanded all the facets of his knowledge and expertise as well as his imagination and courage. It was clearly not just a new dictionary he had in his mind; after his early publications his colleagues had encouraged him to undertake a revision of the Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament by Wilhelm Gesenius and F. Buhl (GB), which at that time had not been revised since 1908/15. Koehler heard their call but was clearly of a different opinion, for he had already realised that his work differed in so many points from that of GB. He came to the conclusion therefore that he would make a Lexicon which was to be completely different, and not simply to be regarded as a new edition of GB, a conclusion which was not altogether surprising for a strong willed “one-year volunteer”. He saw his dictionary as his very own, sealed with his own hand. I once drew his attention to one instance where he had not quoted an Arabic equivalent whereas there were others where he had. He replied, “On that occasion it seemed to me irrelevant, but on the others it was relevant. I am the one who decides what to put in. After all it is my dictionary.” Koehler’s personality is clearly stamped on the Hebrew part of KBL.

Similarly Koehler’s friend Walter Baumgartner (1887-1970) prepared the Aramaic part of KBL separately and in his own way. Distinguished as he was in Old Testament and Orientalist scholarship, he had an unruffled studious nature. He would withdraw into his study and complete his work with persistent effort. His systematic mind would not fail to annotate the manuscript of each entry with accurate appraisals of the results of advanced research in general Semitics. It is therefore futile to search through the Aramaic part for any proposed etymological information which was available to him at the time but which he happened to omit.

When Koehler had died a new edition of KBL was suggested and it was natural to entrust the work to the care of Baumgartner. It is perhaps worth remembering that before he began his revision he devoted the next year to prepare himself for the task. He systematically read again the whole of the Old Testament and prepared critical notes and translations. Only then did he begin work on the dictionary itself. Methodology counted most. He distinguished himself by his attention to accuracy, consistency and authoritative opinion on the Old Testament world and Oriental scholarship. He was more interested in questions about historical and religious

development than about real life situations and Baumgartner thus made his own mark on the new edition.

During his life he was enthusiastic about shorthand and stenography. He used it from day to day, not only for notes but also for the text of lectures and conference addresses. He put brevity as one of the editorial principles for the dictionary entries and did not confine it to the shortening of the names of scholars but included the style (!) of the list of abbreviations. He severely

reduced summaries of scholarly opinions and simply denoted alternative views by using the double colon (::). If he felt there was something to be said for a proposal he would describe the kernel of the idea in a word or two marked with a single colon. Less plausible ideas were

relegated to the bibliographical references. That which he did not consider important enough for consideration he would discard. His motto was to save space.

When Baumgartner died Johann Jakob Stamm (b. 1910) was persuaded to work on the dictionary. He was an important Old Testament and Orientalist scholar in Bern and he was able to step into the breach successfully; he committed himself wholeheartedly with his vast

knowledge of Old Testament research and the Semitic languages. He made many improvements to the dictionary, of which those arising from his expertise in Semitic personal names are just some. He systematically worked through those entries still to be done with accuracy and constructive criticism. From masses of ideas about etymology or the use of vocabulary in essential parts of the Old Testament he chose the most important. Herein lay a clear difference from Baumgartner but one which has nothing to do with Old Testament or Semitic studies. While Baumgartner can be seen as the master of brevity, Stamm is the master of explanation. His entries are longer. He does not restrict himself to the provision of bibliographical information but sets out the different results of research and balances them one against the other. He is a born teacher who carefully explains why he prefers one interpretation to another. On those occasions where there is some uncertainty about a conclusion he observes, “Non liquet”. Moreover (and this may have surprised many readers) he shows how often the sense of a word is uncertain; in KBL it was left open. Word usage, especially the linking of nouns and verbs, was one of

Stamm’s main concerns. By sailing in so full a stream Stamm saved his readers much time. They have all the problems of a word spelled out in every detail. They need not consult articles in full for they can follow the threads of the argument with HAL at their side, and that is one of the significant differences of Stamm’s contributions.

There were also two collaborators from Israel. Baumgartner had met Eduard Yechezkel Kutscher (1909-1971), Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, during a visit to Jerusalem and he was persuaded to help with the Hebrew and Aramaic material. This eminent scholar applied his unsurpassed knowledge in the field of these cognate languages. He distinguished MHb.1 (Mishnah, Toseftah, Halachim Midrash) from MHb.2 (the two Talmuds, Haggadic Midrash) and separated Aramaic into three regional dialects.

After his death Zeʾev Ben Hayyim (b. 1907), also Professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Member of the Academy of Hebrew Language, was persuaded to take his place. He specialises in Samaritan studies to include the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Samaritan dialects and he has made considerable improvements to these philological sections of the Lexicon.

The different approaches that are evident in the Lexicon can therefore be explained from this background information about the collaborators. Every one of the contributors has put his own seal on his contributions through his character and personality, his way of life and his method of working.

We could ask, “Quid est bonum?”, but would have to be content with the reply “Non liquet”. Every one of the scholars has performed his task differently from his colleagues. But differently does not have to mean better or worse; it is not an assessment of quality. Scholarship can be honestly justified in a number of different ways. Let us be grateful that the Lexicon has provided the opportunity to show such difference.

So far as the technology of production is concerned, KBL and HAL reflect the change in working methods from a past age to a new world. Koehler copied out the whole of his manuscript for the printer by himself; he used blue school exercise books which I remember were kept neat and clean in the space between two bookshelves behind the chair in his study. Baumgartner prepared his manuscript in a similar way and the publisher’s copy of the two first fascicles of HAL (to p. 624) were submitted in handwriting by Baumgartner and myself. But

from then on the publishers were no longer happy to receive copy in this form. After the death of Baumgartner we were able to recruit Philippe Reymond (b. 1918) as editor. He expressed his willlingness to fill the gap and to undertake the work in addition to his valuable scholarly contributions to HAL. He undertook the exhausting and not very exciting task of preparing typescripts for the third fascicle onwards.

The printing process has also changed. Brill had set the older fascicles of HAL in lead type but from the fourth fascicle onwards (from p. 1081 of the German edition) modern computer typesetting techniques have been used. Inge Angevaare has become not just the lady who is expert at preparing computer readable text but, more importantly, the first lady to be actively involved in the project of the Lexicon. She deserves our warmest thanks.

There are some other names which I could not fail to mention before closing, all of whom have made significant contributions to the success of our work.

Dr. A. van den Born should be thanked for having corrected the first two fascicles (to p. 624 of the German edition) with great accuracy; he had an exceptional ability to pick out errors and inconsistencies.

F.C. Wieder, W. Backhuys and F.H. Pruyt, Directors of E.J. Brill, are to be thanked for their sympathetic understanding of our project and for being willing to accept it in their programme of publication.

Finally special thanks are due to the Swiss National Endowment for Scientific Research for the tremendous subsidy they have provided for many years; this is the financial resource which has made it possible to complete the Lexicon.

Zürich and Bern, 18th. April 1991

1

1_{Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M., & Stamm, J. J. (1999, c1994-1996). The Hebrew and} Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Volumes 1-4 combined in one electronic edition. (electronic ed.) (lxxvii). Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill.