cover some archaisms, and traces of the popular language, in abbreviations, inaccurate expressions, and the like, but no difference of dialect." [It has sometimes been contended that different dialects were found in the Hebrew. The passages alleged to prove a diversity of dialects are, mainly, Judges xii. 6, where the Ephraimites use s for sh; Nehem. xiii. 23, 24, where it is said some spoke, in part, the language of Ashdod; and Judges xviii. 3, where a young Levite is known by his voice. But, as Gesenius well remarks, it was the voice of the individual, not the tribe of Levites, which was peculiar. Undoubtedly in Judea, as elsewhere, there was a difference between the written and the spoken language; and in times when few could write, the difference was, perhaps, greater than in a period of more refinement.

Eichhorn maintains that there were two chief dialects, the one prevailing east, the other west, of the Jordan; that all the written monuments of the Hebrews are in the latter, with the exception of a few scattered expressions, such as Judges xii. 3-6. He speaks also of Samaritanisms, in Amos and Hosea. But his conclusions and arguments are by no means satisfactory." Dereser finds traces of a Moabitish dialect in Ruth. Kiesling finds Philistinisms and Idumeanisms in the Bible. But Gesenius opposes all these views.] d

C

After the exile, the Hebrew language ceased to be spoken, and only existed as a learned and written lan

• Eichhorn, Einleit. vol. i. p. 84, sq. Allg. Bib. vol. ix. p. 235, sqq.

Kiesling, De Dialectis Heb. Gesenius, l. c. p. 54, sqq. However, the passages in Judges xii. 6, and Neh. xiii. 23, 24, prove the existence of oral differences in the language of the people. See Hartmann, Linguist. Einleit. in A. T. p. 84, sqq.

a

guage. However, several of the later productions of the Hebrew literature owe their existence to this artificial use of a dead language. The book of Daniel is an instance of this.

§ 35.

MEANS OF LEARNING THE EXTINCT HEBREW.

I. HISTORICAL MATERIALS.

1. The Tradition of learned Jews.

A knowledge of that language which is contained in the scanty relics of the Old Testament has been preserved, though but imperfectly, by means of tradition.' Some time after the destruction of Jerusalem in the Palestine and Babylonian schools, and after the eleventh century in those of Spain, this tradition was aided by the study of the Arabic language and its grammar. Jerome learned the Hebrew from Jewish scholars. Their pupils were the restorers of Hebrew learning among the Christians of the sixteenth century.

The lexicographers, grammarians, and commentators,

"Against the exaggerated opinion of the Talmudists, of Ephodius, R. Asarias, Elias Levita, Buxtorf, Hottinger, and Walton, that the Hebrew language was extinct during the exile, see A. Pfeiffer, Theol. Jud. and Muham. c. ii. Opp. ii. p. 864; Löscher, De Causis Ling. Heb. etc. p. 67; Hezel, Gesch. d. Heb. Spr. p. 47; Gesenius, l. c. p. 45, [in Appendix, D,] who rightly explains Neh. viii. 8. But, on the other side, see Hengstenberg, Authentie d. Daniel, p. 299. See, also, Neh. xiii. 24; Hävernik, p. 240; Movers, in Bonner Zeitschrift. xiii. 31, sqq.

On the subject of the Palestine language in the time of Christ, see Pfannkuche, in Eichhorn's Allg. Bib. vol. viii. p. 360, and De Rossi, Della Lingua di Christo e degli Ebrei nationali, della Palestina, da Tempi di Maccabei; Parm. 1772, 4to.

See an exaggerated estimate of the copiousness of the Hebrew language in Schultens, De Defectibus Ling. Heb. § 12.

Abulwalid, David Kimchi, Elias Levita, Jarchi, Aben Esra, Tanchem, and others,

preserve this tradition of the learned. In general, it attains to a high degree of credibility, though, in the course of time, much has been lost, and many errors have been admitted."

§ 36.

2. The old Versions.

The oldest monuments of the traditional, and in part, also, of the learned philology of the Jews are the ancient versions. Their exegetical as well as critical value depends on their directness and their age. The Alexandrian version, the Syriac, the Arabic of Rabbi Saadia Gaon, the Vulgate, but still more eminently, the Chaldee paraphrases, often assist the expositor where other aid fails him. However, in modern times, too much importance has often been attached to these."

• See Gesenius, Preface to his Hebrew Lexicon, [translated by Prof. Robinson, in Bib. Repository, vol. iii. p. 1, sqq.]

See the exaggerated skepticism of Is. Voss and R. Simon. Compare Löscher, De Causis, &c. p. 100. The contempt which Jo. Forster, Bohle, Gousset, and others, have for the rabbins, contrasts very strongly with the slavish dependence of Buxtorf and his school upon them. Since Michaelis published his Critical Examination of the Means for learning the extinct Hebrew Language, modern skepticism has pronounced but a moderate judgment upon them. See Paulus, in the Neue theol. Journal; 1796, pt. iii. p. 255, sqq. His Clavis über die Psalmen, in the Preface.— Bauer, Harmeneutica Sacra, § 14, passes a correct judgment.

[A direct version is made directly from the original; an indirect version from a previous translation.]

See Michaelis, 1. c. p. 117, sqq. Meyer, Hermeneutik der A. T. vol. i. p. 344. Bauer, 1. c. p. 184, sqq. Fischer, Proluss. de Verss. Græcis, V. T., Litterarum Heb. Magistris; Lips. 1772, 8vo. Chr. Fr. Schmidt, Diss. duæ Versionum Alex., &c.; Lips. 1763, 1764, 4to. [See Palfrey, l. c. vol. i. lect. i. Horne, 1. c. pt. i. ch. iii. § 3.]

§ 37.

II. PHILOLOGICAL MATERIALS.

1. Etymology. 2. Comparison of the Dialects.

Tradition and authority do not alone afford sufficient foundation for a scientific and certain knowledge of the language. But every language may be illustrated by itself when some knowledge of it has been previously acquired. Etymology and analogy, therefore, must be called to our aid."

Far more productive, however, is the comparison of the kindred dialects, not only for the explanation of single and similar words, - by restoring radical words which have been lost, and illustrating significations that have become obscure on account of their rare occurrence in Hebrew, -but also for the discovery of explanatory analogies in the usage of the kindred dialects." But this comparison must not be one-sided, so that undue preference is given to one dialect. It must be based on the most certain rules it is possible to attain relative to the corresponding pronunciation and orthography of the cognate words in these dialects, and upon a certain knowledge of their usage. It must be conducted in general by the true spirit of inquiry, and with just philosophical tact, without any fondness for hypothesis.“

a

Michaelis, 1. c. p. 16, sqq. Meyer, 1. c. p. 131, sqq. See the Abuse of Etymology, by Samuel Bohl, xii. Dissertt. pro formali Significatione Script. sac. eruenda; Rost. 1637. Jac. Gusset. Comment. Linguæ Hebr.; Amst. 1702; recus. et auct. per C. Clodium; Lips. 1743.

A. Schultens, Vetus et regia Via hebraizandi; 1738. His Origines Hebr.; 2d ed. 1761. Michaelis, l. c. p. 154, sqq. [Gesenius, in Bib. Repository, vol. iii. p. 15, sqq.]

с

Michaelis, 1. c. p. 219, sqq. Schultens, Clavis dialect. in Erpenius, Rudimenta Ling. Arab.; 2d ed. Lug. Bat. 1770, p. 184, sqq. Gesenius, Hebrew Lexicon, passim.

On the faults of the Dutch school, see Michaelis, p. 258, sqq.; Gesenius,

§ 38.

III. CONTEXT AND PARALLEL PASSAGES.

But, above all, he who inquires into the Hebrew language must admit its independence in respect to its vocabulary and usage, as well as in respect to its syntax and the formation of its words. All inquiry, therefore, upon the etymology and the dialects must be submitted to the general rule of the peculiar Hebrew usage, which is itself to be made out from the context and the parallel passages. However, this maxim has long been considered as insufficient."

Gesch. der hebr. Sprache, p. 128, sqq. Against snatching comparisons out of lexicons, see Michaelis, 1. c. p. 224, sqq. [See the whole of Gesenius's dissertation On the History of the Hebrew as a Dead Language, 1. c. ch. ii.]

See other false systems of investigating the Hebrew language, by Rümelin, Casp. Neumann, Von der Hardt, and others, criticised by Michaelis, 1. c. p. 67, sqq., and Bauer, l. c. p. 83, sqq.