$18.

3. Canon of the Council of Carthage.

The third, or, as others call it, the sixth, council of Carthage, says Lardner, assembled in 397. Aurelius, the bishop of Carthage, presided, and the celebrated Augustine was present. The forty-seventh canon of this council establishes the canon as it is given in the table. It recognizes six apocryphal books, viz. Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach, and the two books of Maccabees. Does it not also include the apocryphal Esther, and Esdras, with the canonical books of those names?'

$19.

4. Canon of Augustine.

Augustine was born 354, and died 430, A. C. His canon is the same that was established by the council of Carthage. Dr. Lardner attempts to explain his admission of apocryphal books to the canon, and shows, if he really maintained the canonicity of these writings, he was inconsistent with himself; for he frequently uses expressions which show that these books were not esteemed of equal authority with those of the Jewish canon. The inconsistency must be admitted.

But we cannot reconcile the difference between his canon and that of Jerome with the common hypothesis, that all the churches of the east and west adhered to one uniform canon.

$ 20.

CONCLUSION.

While the Greek church, through the acquaintance of their teachers with the original Hebrew, or at least with the writings of Origen, adhered to the original and genuine canon, the councils and teachers of the Latin church, for the most part ignorant of Hebrew, enlarged their canon, and admitted nearly all the apocryphal additions of the Alexandrian version. Jerome and Rufinus are, indeed, noble exceptions to this rule. Their learning and diligence had conducted

• See Lardner, pt. ii. ch. 116. See Mansi, vol. iii. p. 891 and 924. Doctr. Christ. ii. ch. viii. 12, 13, 14.

them to the truth; they walked by a clearer light than their contemporaries of the west. Such was the state of opinion respecting the canon at the close of the fourth century. In the following ages, the apocryphal and canonical writings were confounded in the Catholic church. In the Greek church, the influence of Origen still continued, and they were kept distinct. But at this day there is no universal canon adopted by all classes of Christians. The Greek and the Roman church have always differed. The Catholic and the

Protestant still disagree. It is not necessary, for practical purposes, that the limits of the canon should be determined, though the results of our inquiry decide plainly in favor of the present canon of the Protestants. But on what ground is the Song of Solomon admitted to the canon, while the Wisdom of Solomon is cast out as unclean? Certainly not for its intrinsic merits. The Jewish canon, it seems, contains all of the old national works that could be collected, and rejects all other compositions.

D.

HISTORY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE TO THE TIME
OF ITS EXTINCTION. ¿

(See § 30, sqq., p. 120.)

$ 1.

ON THE SHEMITISH LANGUAGES IN GENERAL.

1. The Hebrew language is only a single branch of that great stock of languages and nations in Hither Asia, which, originally, not only embraced Palestine, but also Syria, Phoenicia, Babylonia, Arabia, and Æthiopia. Some have wished to enumerate Assyria, and

"See the letter of Innocent, bishop of Rome, to Exsuperius, bishop of Toulouse, written in 406. All the books of the Carthaginian canon are declared canonical by it. "Recipiantur," says the bishop. See the letter in Semler, Untersuch ub. d. Kanons, vol. i. p. 18. See also p. 20-29.

Translated from Gesenius, Geschichte der Heb. Sprache, beginning with § 4, which is here § 1.

the two provinces in Asia Minor, Cappadocia and Pontus on the Halys, as branches of this trunk; but, to say the least, this is very uncertain. But, on the other hand, in several periods, branches of this stock have extended themselves far beyond their original limits. For example, in times of high antiquity, the Phoenician language prevailed in Carthage, and in the extended colonies and factories of this commercial people. And, in the middle ages, the Arabic language prevailed in all the northern coasts of Africa, as far as Spain."

2. There is no convenient and adequate name for this race of languages and people. The Fathers, and Jerome in particular, call these languages, by way of distinction, the Oriental languages. In modern times, Eichhorn has recommended that the term Shemitish should be used instead of the other; because, in the genealogical table given in Gen. x. 21, sqq., most of these people are derived from Shem. However, it must be admitted that this term is sometimes too extensive, and sometimes too limited, and by no means answers its purpose. But yet an explanation will free it from all chance of mistake, and so it may still be used."

"On the question whether a language kindred to the Hebrew was spoken in Assyria also, see below, § 111, 3. The inquiry on the language of Asia Minor, within the Halys, is likewise connected with this. Bochart, (Canaan, p. 535,) Heeren, (Com. Soc. Gott. vol. viii. p. 23, sqq.,) and others, maintain that a Syriac dialect obtained here, and rely for authority on the name of these people -white-Syrians, Aɛvzooúgo. But Strabo (lib. xii.) expressly ascribes a language of their own to the Cappadocians, the limits of whose possessions he carefully designates. The single words which now remain, which either occur as Assyrio-Persian, or else are of unknown meaning, taken in connection with the fact that the sacred customs of the Persians prevailed there, (Strabo, lib. xv. p. 504, al. 1065,) and that the name Cappadocia is Persian, (Herodotus, vii. 14,) render it probable that these provinces, both in descent and language, belong to the Assyrians, and not the Syrians. See Jablonskii Opusc. vol. ii. p. 126, sqq.

But, on the other hand, there are marks which tend to show that Phoenician was spoken in some parts of Asia Minor. Charilus, a contemporary of Alexander the Great, says this of the Solymi, the ancient inhabitants of Lycia and Pisidia. Josephus (Cont. Ap. i. 22) cites a line from him

Γλῶσσαν μὲν φοινίσσαν ἀπὸ στόματων ἀφιέντας.

But Josephus himself misunderstands the passage, for he supposes the Solymi are the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the Jews; and the verse has frequently been adduced to prove that the Jews spoke Phoenician or Canaanitish. But others corrected the mistake long ago. See Havercamp, in loc.

See Eichhorn, Allg. Bib. vol. vi. p. 772, sqq., and, on the other side, Stange, Theol. Symmicta, vol. i. No. 1. He says the Cushites and Canaanites were descended from Ham; and it is certain the Elamites, and probable that the Assyrians, did not belong to the descendants of Shem. Since Lud is doubt

3. The various dialects into which this great stock of languages is divided may be distinguished into three main branches: —

(1.) The Aramaan, spoken in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia. This again is divided into the east and west Aramæan, that is, the Chaldee and Syriac.

(2.) The Canaanitish or Hebrew, spoken in Palestine and Phonicia. The Punic is a descendant of this.

(3.) The Arabic, of which the Ethiopic is a parallel branch. The Samaritan is a mixture of the Hebrew and Aramæan.

These dialects flourished in their greatest vigor at different times. We have the most ancient traces of the formation of the Hebrew, in which, in general, the oldest monuments of the languages of antiquity are preserved to us. As this became extinct, the east Aramæan, or Chaldee, came forth. The relics we possess of the Syriac are still more modern, and the literature of the Arabic language extends little beyond the age of Mohammed. We have no accounts of it in earlier times, even if it attained a higher degree of culture.

Most of these dialects are now extinct, or only survive in fragments, in obscure districts. But the Arabic has outlived them all, and is not only the prevalent popular language throughout all Syria, Ægypt, Arabia, and the north coasts of Africa, but, as the religious language, it is diffused throughout Persia and Turkey, and wherever the religion of Mohammed prevails. On account of the religious interest felt in the Hebrew language, the works in which it is preserved have been, incontestably, more widely extended since its extinction, than while it was a living tongue: from this cause, as the language of religious books, it has continued to live in the two great religious parties which have proceeded from it."

ful, only two of Shem's offspring, Arphaxad and Aram, remain for our stock of languages. Eichhorn thinks the Canaanites were originally Hamites, and adopted the Shemitish language afterwards, when they settled on the coasts of the Mediterranean. But this is mere conjecture. Still less has it been proved that originally alphabetical writing belonged to the Shemites, and hieroglyphics to the Hamites. The affinity of languages is one of the most treacherous guides for the affinities of nations. So we may well doubt whether the author of that system of the descent of nations, in Genesis, is in the right when he declares part of the Arabian race (the Joctanides, v. 26—30) are of an entirely different origin from the others, (v. 7;) and also when he separates the Hebrews, in this genealogy, from the Canaanites.

"For more minute accounts of the character, history, and literature, of these dialects, see Adelung, Mithridates, vol. i. p. 299, sqq. Eichhorn, Gesch. Lit. vol. v. p. 405, sqq.

4. The difference between these dialects is scarcely as great as that between the different branches of the Slavic, or the German stock, though it is greater and different from that between the dialects of Greece, with which they have, not very properly, been compared. The following are some of the most striking and common peculiarities in which they all differ from the western languages:

(1.) They delight in gutturals, of various degrees, some of which cannot be imitated by us.

(2.) The primitive words usually consist of two syllables, and are more frequently verbs than nouns.

(3.) The oblique cases of the personal pronouns and the similar possessive pronouns are always affixed to the verb, noun, or particle. (4.) The verb has only two tenses. As for the optative and subjunctive moods, they scarcely exist. On the contrary, a general analogy is found in expressing the different modifications in the meaning of a verbal.

(5.) There are only two genders, masculine and feminine. The cases are indicated by prepositions; the genitive, very peculiarly, by a close connection with the nominative. There are no distinct forms for the comparative and superlative. However, the Arabic is an exception to this rule.

(6.) Compound words are never found either as nouns or verbs, but only as proper names.

(7.) The syntax is somewhat simple, and the style is remarkable for the absence of a periodic structure, which arises from the want of particles and the awkward use of them."

After this general survey, we will now turn to the Hebrew language itself, the only one which concerns us at this time.

The term "Hebrew language" (5) does not occur in the Old Testament, though it must have been common when part of it was written. Instead of this name, the language is usually called the language of Canaan, Isa. xix. 18, ; but here the expression is rather the poetical than the common term. It seems to be called the Jews' language in 2 Kings xviii. 26, (com

a C. G. Anton, Versuch Unterscheidungszeichen der Or. und Occid. Spr. zu entdecken; Leip. 1792, 8vo.