Click to search the Andrew Heiskell Braille and Talking Book Library Skip Navigation

The New York Public Library will be closed on Sunday, April 20.

Three Faiths

Languages of God: The Word as Decoration

Share

 Petrus Paulus Porrus, 1516The New York Public Library, Rare Book DivisionThe First Polyglot Psalter, Psalter, in Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and Aramaic; Genoa: Petrus Paulus Porrus, 1516
The New York Public Library, Rare Book Division
Jews and Muslims have a particular attachment to languages as expressions of the Word of God. Hebrew and Arabic are both sacred languages since both are in a sense the language of God Himself.

But there is an important difference. The Jews lost their Hebrew as a living language while the Bible was still in the process of formation. As a result, some of the last sections of the Book of Daniel are not in Hebrew but in Aramaic, a closely related Semitic language spoken by many in the Middle East, including Jesus, in post-Exilic times.

Muslims, on the other hand, never turned away from the Arabic, because the language and style of the Quran were early on proven inimitable—and as a result, became the validating miracle of Islam, similar in importance to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

The veneration of text and language thus went hand in hand in Islam, and the emphasis on both was strengthened by an even earlier aversion to figurative art.

Muslims took God’s Biblical prohibition against idols as seriously as the Jews, and, like the Jews, they extended it, though not at all times or in all places, to figurative and pictorial art generally. Muslim decoration, then, frequently took the form of repetitive geometric or vegetal patterns, the so-called arabesque. (This type of decoration was not original with Islam; it can be observed on many of the Roman monuments of the Middle East, in Syria, for example, which antedate Islam by many centuries.)

The other Muslim alternative to figurative art seems to have been Islam’s own special creation, or at least emphasis. Large, elegantly inscribed writing appears unmistakably as decoration and not merely as information on Greek and Roman buildings and in more miniature form on coins. Muslims too put inscriptions on their coins, and eventually removed the figures from them. They did the same to their earliest buildings, like the Dome of the Rock (692 CE) which has mosaic inscriptions in the interior. But as time passed, the writing on buildings in particular took on a life of its own as it was transformed from writing to calligraphy.

Extraordinarily ornate writing runs around the portals, across the facades or up and down panels on the walls of most of the great Islamic monuments of the Middle Ages. Its design is often stunningly intricate and complex, almost unreadable in fact, in the manner of modern graffiti. In most cases the literate viewer probably needed little help in understanding the writing since texts were usually familiar quranic ones. It was purely and simply the Word that was being magnified by artistic enhancement.

From the tenth century onward, Jews produced artistically illuminated manuscripts in Muslim Egypt, though without figurative representations. Two centuries later, when Jewish manuscript illumination began in Christian Europe, sacred or ceremonial objects were portrayed, and later, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, figures of rabbis and others began to appear.

But there is no exaltation of Hebrew into the monumental public calligraphy of Arabic—and it’s not difficult to understand why. Islam was official: it controlled the public life of the Middle East and what was permissible in it; Jews lived under the dhimma, which would have made the public display of Hebrew not only unlikely but dangerous.

*     *     *     *     *

F.E. Peters is Professor Emeritus of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies and History at New York University, and an advisor on NYPL's exhibition, Three Faiths: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Comments

Patron-generated content represents the views and interpretations of the patron, not necessarily those of The New York Public Library. For more information see NYPL's Website Terms and Conditions.

Correction to my esteemed and learned colleague

After reading this week’s blog post, the venerable Hebrew language could well proclaim, in a paraphrase of W.C. Fields' famous quip, that "rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated." In this week’s blog post, my colleague F. E. Peters writes: "But there is an important difference. The Jews lost their Hebrew as a living language while the Bible was still in the process of formation. As a result, some of the last sections of the Book of Daniel are not in Hebrew but in Aramaic, a closely related Semitic language spoken by many in the Middle East, including Jesus, in post-Exilic times." I am afraid that this is not quite accurate. The sections of Daniel that are in Aramaic tell us a great deal about the rise of the importance of that language. Similarly the widespread use of Aramaic by Jews both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora are important fields of study for scholars. But no matter which lessons you choose to learn from the rise of Aramaic, the death of Hebrew is not one of them. Contrary to Frank's assertion, the Jews did not lose Hebrew as a living language at any time. Throughout their history, Jews have augmented Hebrew with other locally spoken languages, but never replaced it. Hebrew remained the Lingua Franca for Jews throughout antiquity and the medieval period. One might perhaps argue that the linguistic development of Hebrew in the post biblical era was less pronounced, but in his next paragraph, Frank implies that unlike the case of Muslims and Arabic, Jews "turned away" from Hebrew. This too is grossly inaccurate. Jews continued to write the vast majority of their literature in Hebrew throughout history until the dawn of the Modern era, the Aramaic sections of Daniel and the Aramaic portions of the Babylonian Talmud notwithstanding. A casual reader of this post who was unaware of Frank’s long and distinguished career chronicling the history of these faiths might mistakenly assume that he was perpetuating the viciously anti-Semitic stereotype that posits that all Jewish creativity, linguistic or otherwise, simply disappeared contemporaneously with the rise of Christianity and the destruction of the Temple in the late 1st century CE. This timeworn canard has been long put to rest. David Wachtel <em>David Wachtel is Co-Curator of the NYPL Exhibition, Three Faiths: Judaism Christianity, and Islam</em>

Correction to my esteemed and learned colleague

In my earlier response, I misattributed the quotation “rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated” to W.C. Fields when of course it was Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) who actually said "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

Post new comment