the highest degree, where the historian connects certain proper names with mythical stories with which they originally had no connection, or, in general, when he uses them to serve the end of historical myths. The Greek and Roman poets and writers of myths, in similar cases, are bold in the highest degree.

$10.

EXTINCTION OF THE LANGUAGE.

1. In the last period, the relation between the written and the popular languages, which were cognate and contemporary, may be illustrated, more or less, by the analogy between the ancient and modern Greek, the Slavic and the Russian, and even between the German popular dialect and the written language of Germany; but, in this latter instance, the written language is the modern. The last comparison is the more suitable, inasmuch as the less careful German writers in particular, the Swiss and Swabian-sometimes permit the peculiarities of the popular language to shine through, here and there. The example of the German nation also shows how a dialect (the High German) can be pretty well understood without speaking it. We cannot accurately determine how long the old Hebrew remained a living language; whether it continued a long time in some sections, among the "more respectable" and educated; in short, the more and the less of the subject cannot be distinctly ascertained.

a

This only is certain, that, in Nehemiah's time, the people still spoke Hebrew; that, in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabees, the Hebrew was still written, though the Aramæan was the prevalent language; and, on the contrary, about this time, and shortly after Alexander the Great, even the learned Jews found it hard to understand difficult passages of the old writings, because the language had ceased to be a living speech. The reign of the Seleucidæ, and the new influence of an Aramæan people, seem gradually to have destroyed the last traces of it.

b

[See instances where the writers of the books of Chronicles misunderstood the more ancient documents, Samuel and Kings, in § 189–192, below.]

2. The Talmudists and the Jewish grammarians, Ephodæus, Elias Levita, and Kimchi, followed by Hottinger, Walton, Buxtorf, and others, make an exaggerated and incorrect statement, when they say that in the exile the Jews had completely forgotten the old language, and immediately after that period, that the priests and literary men had to acquire it as a learned language. They all rely, mainly, as it seems, on a false explanation of Neh. viii. 8. There it is said, "And they [the priests and Levites] read in the book, in the Law of the Lord, i, (verbally, or truly, accurately,) and gave the sense, and explained what was read." The parallel passage in Ezra iv. 18, shows that, the word on which this question turns, must have this meaning. There the king of Persia says, "The letter which you sent me has been read before me, i, verbally," word for word. Here we have a reading of the Scripture, word for word, accompanied with explanations of whatever was difficult, and probably with a religious application of it, all in the same language.

The Jews explain the word differently. They understand in the rabbinical sense of "explained," "with explanations," and suppose it refers to a translation into the Chaldee language. But even in the rabbinical writings, the word never means translation into another language; and besides, it is expressly said (Neh. xiii. 23, 24) that the Jews spoke Hebrew at that time.d

a

Gemara, Tr. Megilla, 3, c. 1. Nedarim, 37, 2. Ephodaus, Gram. c. 7. Elias, Præf. ad Metherg. Kimchi, Præf. ad Michlol. Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 279. Walton, Proleg. iii. § 24. Buxtorf, Diss. Philol. p. 157.

See same use of the word, Lev. xxiv. 21, Num. xii. 34. Buxtorf, Lex. 2. Ex. xxviii. 11. Isa. viii. 11.

Rambach, Clericus, and Dathe, follow this opinion. The latter thinks the word refers to a translation into the Persian language, in Ezra iv. 18; but this is expressed by 7, (Ezra iv. 7, 18.)

d See Bertholdt, p. 992. The author of the book Cosri, pt. iii. p. 15, thinks a knowledge of the Hebrew language and law was preserved in the hearts of priests and judges. Even Walton thinks the language was not entirely forgotten among the people. See the views of Pfeiffer and Löscher, 1. c. Simonis, Int. in Ling. Heb. p. 33. Carpzov, Crit. p. 213. See Eichhorn, Bibliothek, vol. viii. p. 360, sqq. Paulus, Verosimilia de Judæis ...... Jesu tempore Græca.. De Rossi, Ling. di Christo; Parm. 1772, 4to.

locutis.

......

$ 11.

RICHES AND EXTENT OF THE ANCIENT LANGUAGE."

b

It is self-evident that the entire vocabulary of the ancient language cannot be contained in our relics of the old Hebrew literature. However, we are not to estimate the lost portion too highly, by reckoning all possible combinations from triliteral radicals; for, if this rule is followed, we shall have now remaining scarcely the sixth part of the primitive words. The relics of the language, however, enable us to judge that the people who used it moved in a pretty limited circle of ideas; but of these the religious ideas were the most completely formed. The language itself discloses the same fact, for religious ideas are pointed out and distinguished with the greatest copiousness and accuracy. It had a great copiousness in words of a similar sense, on account of the peculiar structure of its poetry, where the parallelism of the members often demanded different expressions of the same thought. In comparison, it may be said that the Hebrew language, in general, and in respect to its copiousness, stands midway between the Arabic, which is more, and the Syriac, which is less, copious. However, some sources may be found that furnish more or less important contributions to the language contained in the Bible, and from which both grammars and lexicons may be enriched or derive explanations. They are the following:

I. The proper names, which, in Hebrew, as in all languages, were at

See a treatise by Corn. Van Waenan, De Lingua Heb. pomariis ampliandis, in Schultens's Sylloge of Dissertations, p. 719, sqq. See Schultens, De Defect. Ling. Heb. § 12.

Albert Schultens (De Defect. Ling. Heb. § 12) thinks there were about twelve thousand triliteral roots possible. Exclusive of the quadriliterals, only about two thousand of these occur. If every root had but thirty derivatives, then thirty thousand are lost! What a conclusion from the possible to the actual! See Simonis, Introd. in Ling. Heb. p. 16. Michaelis, Supplem. p. 109. De Sacy, Gramm. Arab. vol. i. p. 30. Leusden enumerates the words that occur in the Hebrew (and Chaldee) Bible at five thousand six hundred and forty-two. In Greek, there are about eighty thousand.

It has been said that it contains sixteen verba frangendi, ten verba quærendi, and fourteen expressing confidence in God. In words relating to things that belong to the life of Oriental herdsmen, the language is incomparably richer than the most highly-cultivated European language, e. g. in names for cattle and wild beasts at different ages. See Carpzov, Crit. sac. p. 201.

first appellatives. They may contain much from the most ancient language, which will explain the formation of the present dialect. From this source we obtain a whole series of grammatical forms, new verbs and nouns, - with which we are acquainted in the Arabic and Syriac languages, but which it is certain were Hebrew likewise, and primitive forms, from which only the derivatives remain.“ . . . 1. In other dialects, the following proper names are very wellknown appellatives. Geshur,, bridge. Dothan,, two springs. Nun, 72, fish., law. Sisera, x, battle-array. Cain, 7, a smith. Appellatives from the names of beasts are particularly clear. Aran, , wild goat. Jemimah, m, dove. Hoglah,, partridge. Othni,, lion.

, שעלבים,Shaalabbin

city of foxes, (fox-borough.) We can trace more than thirty proper
names into similar radical words. This has been done, though
not completely, in Schiedii Lex. Heb. ed. Gronewoud.
In many

instances, the etymology is, indeed, obscure, but a good deal of the
obscurity may be cleared up by a careful examination. Thus

;possession of peace, ירוש שלם is certainly not compounded of ירושלס

but it means rather people of peace, from, equivalent to the
Arabic, synonymous with 3, D, so that perhaps it means
tent, or dwelling of peace, for , in Hebrew, had this modified.
sense. Compare, a tent, in Arabic, a people; also, ♫,
a house, or a people. So, or, the name of a desert, means
dwelling of God. The writers themselves explain many difficult
words, as, for example, 7, (Gen. xvii. 5,) 79, (xxv. 25.) But
in other cases, the etymology which they give is not correct. Thus,
according to 1 Sam. i. 20, is derived from and,
called of God; but a better meaning is, name of God, from, the
construct state of D, as and are the construct state of N.
So
means mourning of Egypt, according to Gen. iv. 11;
but it rather means place or threshing-floor of Egypt. In some
instances, we have not the means of understanding fully an allusion

a See the literature on the explanation of the proper names in Wolff, Bib. Heb. vol. ii. p. 565. Hist. Lex. p. 219, sqq. Yet much is still to be done. The most useful works are Simonis, Onomasticon, V. T., (1741, 4to.,) and Hilleri Onomast., (1706, 4to.)

See Lexicon, sub voce.

See above, § 8, 4.

to the etymology of a name; an example occurs in Jer. xx. 3, which seems to mean welfare."

2. The grammatical forms, which seldom or never occur in the common language, are as follows: the emphatic state of the Aramæan in 7, a city, by, a yoke; the dual form in 7, 77, and 1, (see § 21, 3;) the Arabic form of the Segolate noun, as in 778; the Chaldee form of the future, as 77, he would advise; 7, he assembles together; the participle, ass, camel-keeper. Comparen, maintaining, (Ps. xvi. 5;) the frequent jod compaginis,

The old singular forms, of which only the plural is now found, are of special importance., a mountain, (compare Gen. xlix. 26;), a city, of which the plural occurs, . There are several words of the form, of which only the plurals remain, as

and, לָמָה = יְמוּ God's day, which is a relic of , יְמוּאֵל So . אָבִים ימ מַת = מְתוּ where ,מְתוּשָׁאֵל or, מְתוּשֶׁלַח So יָמִים is the singular of

or, (in Æthiopic, mět,) signifies man, and is the singular of

or, רֵעֶה = רעו where , שְׁמוּאֵל and רְעוּאֵל Of the same form are .מְתִים שְׁמוּ and ,רֵעַ · שֵׁם =

II. Another source, not always sufficiently regarded or made use of for single ancient forms of speech, is found in the variants of the Kethib, where the authors of the Keri have sometimes inserted some old and genuine words along with what seemed to them to be incorrect, and with some real errors. According to the old critical canon, that where both are supported by equal authority, the more difficult reading has the preference, the balance turns in favor of the Kethib; and the analogy of the cognate dialects often comes to settle the well-known controversy of the Masorites, according to the principles of these languages. b

a See J. D. Michaelis, Com. in loc.

F.

For an alphabetical list of the Kethib and Keri, see Simonis, Analysis Lect. Masoret.; Hal. 1752, 8vo. They are arranged in classes by Hiller, De arcan. Kethib et Keri; Tub. 1692, 8vo. On the superiority of the Kethib, and the explanation thereof, see J. A. Danzius, Sinceritas Scripturæ V. T. prævalente Keri vacillans; Jen. 1713, 4to., reprinted in J. Iken, Thes. Phil. novus. Tsepregi, Diss. de Authentia select. Chethibim, partes ii., (Francq. 1725;) reprinted in Sylloge Dissertat. above cited, vol. i. No. 2, 3. J. F. Froriep, Diss. de Utilitate Ling. Arab. in defendendis nonnullis locis Toù Chethib; Leips. 1767, 4to.