this circumstance affords little evidence to enable us to determine which was the most ancient among the Hebrews. It is more important for the antiquity of the Phoenician alphabet, that, (3.) We can trace it much farther in history than the square letter. We have a very early and certain proof of it in the old Greek character in the inscription at Sigeum and Amycla, which is derived from the Phoenician, and closely allied to it. On the contrary, we cannot trace the Hebrew Chaldee character on historic monuments beyond the birth of Christ, nor by combination above the age of the Seventy. There is an important probability in favor of the higher antiquity of the former character, though the absence of historical testimony is not decisive against the use of the square letter among the Hebrews. b All the previous arguments, especially 1 and 3, obviously render it highly probable that the Phoenician-Samaritan character was that first used by the Hebrews. (4.) An explanation of this legend will bring us still nearer certainty. In respect to outward authority, it is opposed by another, which is supported by a far greater number of Jewish teachers; but that is the oldest tradition, which seems to have prevailed in the time of Origen and Jerome; and the definite statement respecting the letter contains an historic fact, which, though, perhaps, it is misrepresented, cannot have been taken up at random. On the contrary, the other and more modern Jewish story has rather the appearance of an apology, and seems to be the production of an age when it was thought important to discover something holy, and of primeval antiquity, in the outward form of the Bible. (5.) But perhaps the most important fact is found in the names of the two alphabets, (the square letter being called Assyrian, and the writing of Ezra; the other called Hebrew.) Both are probably older than this tradition, and independent of it. . . It is often the case that the last trace of an historical fact is discernible in such names, and it is not to be despised; and in this case, it can only be explained by supposing the Assyrian character to mean properly the Assyrian, that is, the Chaldee, and the other to be the original Hebrew. The Palmyrene inscriptions show it is a fact that the Aramaan was originally written in this character. . . . . . . Is it probable the old and genuine Hebrew character would be called Assyrian, because it a Chishull, 1. c. p. 2. Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique, vol. ii. p. 66. Bellermann, Archäologie, p. 60. The Palmyrene inscriptions belong here. was more extensively used after Ezra returned from Chaldæa? How much more probable that it was itself the character of the Assyrians and Chaldees! Would the Samaritan be called the Hebrew character, because it was used by the common people of the HeWere the others less Hebrews? Where was the difference brews? between them? $4. PROBABLE RESULT. If we now unite the results of our previous inquiries with some other considerations, we think the following statements may be considered probable: that the influence 1. Many of the above arguments agree in this, of the exile and the Chaldee writing character produced a change in the old Hebrew character, like that produced in the language itself. The legend ascribes this change (which, from its nature, could only be brought about gradually, and which must belong to an entire age) to Ezra, who, in many Jewish legends, appears as a collective name, to whom was referred every thing which was done in this whole age in behalf of learning. This truth may lie in the story of Ezra, namely, that the new writing came from Chaldæa, as the Phoenician origin of the Greek writing lies in the story of Cadmus. It is still matter of controversy, whether the new writing was directly Chaldee, or a mixture of the old and the Chaldee; but the former is more probable. Perhaps it is true that, before this change and afterwards, while this writing was current, and used with freedom, many letters occur, which cannot be explained from the alphabet then existing. The great variety and freedom of the Phoenician characters render this plain. . . . . 2. In the age of the Seventy, the writing was essentially like the present square letter, and the manuscripts, not excepting the Pentateuch, from which this version was made, were written with such letters. Among other peculiarities, the final letters were wanting. The proof of this is found in the fact, that the numerous deviations of the text of the Seventy from the common text, so far as they arise from corresponding similar letters, can be explained by the square character. The passage Matt. v. 8 may be brought to sustain this a Jahn, Einleit. vol. i. p. 326. Eichhorn, § 65. Morinus, De Ling. Prim. p. 236. proposition, for jod was the smallest letter in the time of Christ; consequently the square letter prevailed. . . . 3. The Maccabees chose for the coins the ancient character, which, it is probable, had not then gone entirely out of use, in the same way that the Cufic character was taken, by the Arabians, as a coin-letter, some centuries after the introduction of the nishi. The Maccabees did this from their fondness for the old, and perhaps because it was akin to the Phoenician character; and they hoped to favor their trade and commerce by means of it. The tendency of this age to preserve, imitate, and restore, the ancient Hebrew, is well known and obvious. Here it shows itself particularly in the use of the old Hebrew dialect for inscriptions, even in the old name Israel, instead of the modern Judah." 4. We can now lay aside the question whether the Assyrian writing, in the time of the Seventy, was a smaller and more flowing character, (like the Palmyrene,) from which, afterwards, the square letter was formed, as a sort of fractur, under the hands of the biblical caligraphists. It is true that Jerome mentions the Hebrew as a small character, injurious to the eyes." The addition of the final letters, and other changes mentioned below, prove that in this period other alterations were made for the sake of caligraphy. . . . . . . a 5. This statement differs from one that resembles it in an essential point, namely, the opinion that the square letter was gradually formed, by the art of the caligraphists, from the old Phoenician character, a little after the time of the Maccabees." It appears the two alphabets differ from one another, actually and essentially, as belonging to two different lines: this is shown by the difference between many letters, but in particular by the fact that several square letters approach nearer the original form than the Phoenician. . . . ...... 6. The objections that arise to this alteration of the character are easily answered. "It is not conceivable," says one, "that Ezra, who adhered so pedantically to the old, should have taken this new character from the profane and hated Chaldees." But it is not Ezra who did this; but his age and the circumstances brought it about. If he had wished, he could as little hinder it as he could restrain the influence of the Chaldee language. "But old accounts for example, the book of Ezra and Josephus -say nothing of this." But we have not a detailed history of those times. It may have taken place so gradually that it did not become a Eichhorn, 1. c. Gesenius, Lex. Heb. sub his vocibus. Michaelis, Or. Bib. vol. xxii. p. 117. Jerome, Prol. ad Ezech. xx. De Wette, Archaol. p. 347. an object of historic interest. "A transcription of manuscripts would be equally tedious and unnecessary." We are not to think of such a transcription; for, as the characters gradually changed, the early letters would not be forgotten so soon as to require it. F. (See $30.) ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE HEBREW VOWELS, § 1. SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT. 1. It was mentioned above, as a striking peculiarity of the Shemitish languages, that in most, and probably in all of them, only the consonants were written; that all the other marks of the tone, particularly of the short vowel tones, were omitted in writing, and were first gradually fixed at a later date, by vowels and diacritical marks. The question now arises, Was this the case with the Hebrew characters? The want of historical facts has given occasion to a tedious controversy among the philologists who have written upon the Bible, and to the most various opinions. Some have maintained the vowel points were contemporary with the original consonants, or, at least, that they were introduced by Ezra; while others maintain that they are the invention of anonymous Jews, who lived at a later period, namely, after the fifth century since Christ." a Translated from Gesenius, 1. c., § 48 in the original. The following is a sketch of the different views that have prevailed, and of the literature of the subject. Almost all the Jewish writers of the middle ages maintain the vowels are contemporary with the consonants; or, at least, that they were introduced by Ezra and the Great Synagogue. (See Buxtorf, De Vocal. pt. i. ch. 1-4.) But there are some exceptions to this remark; namely, there are some hints in Aben Ezra's book Zachuth, fol. 138, 193, a doubtful passage in the book Cosri, pt. iii. § 31, ed. Buxtorf. (See Buxtorf, De Vocal. p. 26, sqq. On the contrary, Morinus, Exercit. ii. 13, 2.) The book Zohar seems to have reference to such opposite opinions and doubts, in making its 2. Since the later and gradual formation of the present vowel system may be considered as established, it will be assumed in this place, and all controversy and critical arguments will be omitted, while we conjure up what we can respecting the pronunciation among the Hebrews, and the signs of pronunciation, with a short examination of the vocalization...... $2. PERIOD WHEN THE HEBREW WAS A LIVING LANGUAGE. I. When impartially estimated, the preponderance is found on the side of those arguments which show that the Hebrew language, during the entire period when it was a living language, was written without any vowels or diacritical marks. In favor of this we have, 1. The nature and analogy of the cognate Shemitish characters. Here, where facts speak for themselves, the objection that the inven strong defence of the antiquity of the vowels. (See Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 76.) These Jewish opinions were embraced by some Christians who lived at the time, and probably received them from the Jews; e. g. by Raymond Martini, (about 1278, in his Pugio Fidei, iii. 19,) Perez de Valentia, (about 1430, Introd. ad Expos. in Psalmos; see Semler's Hist. Theol. Abhandlungen, i. 4,) and Nicholas de Lyra, (ad Hos. ix.) They were followed by the reformers, Luther, (on Gen. xxxvi. 38, 12, tract. de Shamphorash; on the contrary, see Hody, De Bibl. Text. p. 561, Heumann, Consp. Reipub. Lit. cap. iii. c. 14,) Calvin, (on Zech. ix. 7,) by Pellican, (Præf. ad Pent.,) and others. The modernness of the vowels has been defended minutely, and on good ground, by Elias Levita, (Masoreth Hammasoreth, translated by Semler; 1772.) The elder Buxtorf declared against him. The subject was discussed more earnestly after Lud. Cappellus published his Arcanum Punct. revelatum, which was assailed by Buxtorf, (ubi sup.,) to which Cappellus replied in his Vindiciis Arcani Punct. revelati. The opinion of Cappellus gradually prevailed, and has even been exaggerated by some. Yet the doctrine that the vowel points were original, and even inspired, became an article of the creed in Switzerland. Formula Consensus, canon ii.—The most modern defenders of the antiquity of the vowels, who think they were used before the time of the Talmud, are G. O. Tychsen, in Eichhorn's Rep. vol. iii. p. 102, and Jac. Robertson, in the dissertation prefixed to his Clavis Pentateuchi; Edinburgh, 1770, 8vo. A few writers choose a middle course, and ascribe to the Hebrews a few ancient vowel characters, which were affixed to some difficult words. This, with different modifications, is the opinion of J. H. Hottinger, (Thes. Phil. p. 401,) Jo. Prideaux, (Lect. de Capt. Relig.; Oxon. 1648, p. 196, Opp. omnia, p. 168,) Humphrey Prideaux, (Connection, &c.,) and Albert Schultens, (Instit. Ling. Heb. p. 48, 62, sqq.) They have been followed by Michaelis, (Vermischte |