these names were afterwards given to these places, or that names of persons and places were Hebraized, with some alterations; for the character of the language is so penetrating that we can easily compare with it the Persian and Ægyptian names, on which it has made only rare and slight alterations. Sometimes, when names are changed, the fact is expressly stated; for example, Num. xxxii. 38, Jos. xv. 15, xix. 47.

and

2. The case is the same with the Phoenician proper names, the Phoenician words that are deciphered from inscriptions and coins, or preserved by Greek and Roman writers. So far as these words can be recognized, they either coincide completely with the Hebrew, both in form and signification, or they approach more nearly to it than to any other of the cognate dialects, even nearer than to the Syriac.

The Punic language, spoken at Carthage, which early separated from the parent state, without doubt received many foreign ingredients; but it cannot conceal its origin. Augustine and Jerome, among the ancients, frequently remarked this."

3. After the return from Ægypt, the Canaanites remained a long time with the Hebrews in the land, and no difference of language is mentioned. But this difference between the Jewish and other languages was noticed, not only in respect to the Ægyptians, (Ps. lxxxi. 6, cxiv. 1,) but in respect to such nations as spoke the cognate dialects, for example, the Aramæan, as used by the Assyrians, (Isa. xxxvi. 11,) and the east-Aramæan of the Chaldees, (Jer. v. 15.)

4. The Hebrew language itself seems to present certain phenomena which lead to the opinion that it was formed in Canaan. Thus the term sea (7) is the only term for "the west." It is sometimes said that the internal structure of the language shows it grew up in the midst of polytheism; but the appearances that seem to favor this opinion can be explained in another way more satisfactorily, and more in accordance with analogy.'

Augustine, Ep. ad Rom.: Christus:

Hunc Hebræi dicunt Messiam,

quod verbum linguæ punica consonum est, sicut alia Hebræa permulta et pæne omnia. Quæst. in Jud. vi. 16: Istæ linguæ non multum inter se differunt. Tract. xv. in Joan.: Cognatæ quippe sunt linguæ istæ, Hebræa et Punica. Jerome, on Isa. vii.: Lingua Punica quæ de Hebræorum fontibus manare dicitur. See, also, on Jer. v. 25. Præf. in Ep. ad Galatos.

See Eichhorn, § 10, 11.

Clericus (Ling. Heb. i. 5, and on Gen. i. 1, and xi. 5) thinks of poly

5. For this reason it is called the language of Canaan. Isa. xix. 8."

$ 5.

AGE OF THE LANGUAGE IN ITS PRESENT FORM.

g. Norton, Gen. It may be maintained, with the highest degree of probability, that of the Gospels the Hebrew language, in its present form, and the literary producFol..ilis, p. tions in that language, can scarcely extend beyond the period of David and Solomon. Here it is that we find the first sure ground in the history of the language.

On the supposition that the Pentateuch was a production of the Mosaic age, we must place the terminus a quo much higher. But although this doctrine has found such learned defenders in the present age, it can scarcely be brought again before the bar of impartial criticism. If there were no historical arguments, the language, with which we are now alone concerned, would lie as a very important weight in the balance; for it is a fact that the language of the Pentateuch coincides perfectly with that of the other old historical books, and, in the poetic passages, it coincides with the poetry of the first age of the language. If these writings are separated by nearly a thousand years from one another; if the former are to be ascribed to Moses, as some maintain, then we shall have a phenomenon before us that is without a parallel in the whole history of languages, namely, that the living language and the circle of ideas of the people remained unaltered during so long a period.

theistic origin, but was preserved after the introduction of monotheism, and applied to God, who stood in the place of all gods. Jewish writers preceded him in this. Liber Cosri, p. 256. See Herder, 1. c. vol. i. p. 48. Gabler, in Eichhorn's Urgesch. vol. i. p. 220, pt. ii. p. 108, vol. ii. p. 218. Eichhorn, in voce in Simonis Lex. But the thought is rather ingenious than well founded, for the pluralis excellentiæ occurs in and, where such an explanation

cannot be admitted.

a See proofs of this in Walton, Prol. iii. 14-19. Bochart, Can. ii. 1. Clericus, 1. c. No. 5. Bellermann, Erklärung d. punischen Stellen im Pönulus der Plautus, pt. i. p. 5, and pt. iii. p. 5. An appeal has erroneously been made to the verse in Chœrilus. See § 1, No. 1. A. Pfeiffer, Opp. 692. Fulleri, Miscel. iv. 4. Herder (1. c. vol. i. p. 317) calls this opinion "one of the fables of our age, which has not understood its meaning," but brings no proof.

The unimportant idiomatic expressions need not be considered in this connection.

a

Attempts have been made to explain this in two ways: 1. that the Oriental languages, like their customs and manners, alter less than those of Western nations; and, 2. that the writings of Moses were the classics of the nation, and so became the rule and standard of succeeding writers. But it can easily be shown how inadequate these theories are to explain the fact. The first is by no means supported by history to the degree maintained; for all know that the Oriental languages, with which we are acquainted during a thousand years, have undergone very obvious changes during that period. The last has still less weight."

In this connection, it has been maintained, either that these old documents were imitated in the subsequent written language alone, or that the living and spoken language was likewise fixed by such classic works. In the first case, an appeal is made to the example of the Greeks and Romans; to that of the Koran and Luther's Bible. This is the only argument that has a show of probability in its favor. But this theory not only contradicts other plain evidence that the Mosaic writings did not exist so early, but also assumes that, like those classics, they were in all hands. Still further, the other historical books have not the character of imitations, like some of the later imitative psalms. They do not relate to the Pentateuch, as the poems of the Alexandrian writers relate to those of Homer, but in language and character they seem to be productions of the same, or very similar ages.

Finally, these analogies do not prove what is expected of them. The case of the Greek and Roman classics is not to the point; for the question now concerns a living, not a dead language. The two other cases are against this hypothesis; for our literary language and that of the Arabians are no longer the language of Luther's Bible or the Koran. The last case answers itself. Even in our age of study, it is not conceivable that a writer, though never so classic, could, in the slightest degree, hold back the pressure of the living language; not to mention that, in antiquity, there was incomparably

a

Michaelis, Einleit. in A. T. p. 166. Jahn, Einleit. vol. i. p. 266. Eckermann's Theol. Beyträge, vol. v. pt. i. p. 92.

b Jahn (1. c.) appeals, with the more plausibility, to the example of the Syriac in the Peshito of the second century, which does not differ in essentials from that of Abulpharagius in the thirteenth. But here he overlooks the most important fact, that, since the Arabian conquest, the Syriac has been a dead language, capable of no further development or culture. But still their stock of words (Sprach vorrath) is remarkably different.

The con

less reading and writing, and more speaking and acting. trary case is rather the true one that the language carries the old documents along with it, in their turn, and constrains them to speak in the language of later times. If, here and there, in the Pentateuch, far older documents are actually to be found, at the bottom, we must necessarily assume that they have been wrought over, and clothed anew in the language of the age. The result remains the same for the history of language, namely, that the literary productions of the Old Testament, which were written in their present form before the exile, were all composed about the same time. This is the only point to be proved in this place.

$6.

FIRST PERIOD OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.

1. As the language appears at present in the writings of the Old Testament, we can distinguish in them only two periods distinctly marked by their character. The one includes the writings before the exile, the other the writings during the exile and after it. The former has, not inappropriately, been named the golden, the latter the silver age.

2. Here, two kinds of style are met with, existing at the same time-the prose of the common historical narrative, and the poctical diction. The latter, with all its peculiarities, occurs in the historical books, whenever prophecies, blessings, and songs of praise, rise to poetry. This poetical language, which is not externally distinguished by measure of the syllables, but rather by a rhythmic measure of periods, and their parallelism, — in reference to the usages of language, forms and significations. of words, grammatical additions, &c., has many peculiarities of its own, which are not always properly observed. Most of these peculiarities belong to the common form, in other dialects, and particularly the Syriac; and this explains the fact, that some of these peculiarities reappear in the later style of the silver age, which has an Aramaan tinge. In reference to rhythm and

" It is probable there are such in the decalogue.

In opposition to the writers mentioned in note a, p. 439, see Fulda, in Paulus's Neu. Rep. vol. iii. p. 135. Othmar, (Nachtigall,) in Henke's Mag. vol. ii. p. 471. Compare Adelung, 1. c. vol. i. p. 359. Meyer's Hermeneutik. A. T. vol. i. p. 124, sqq.

language, the prophets stand midway between poetry and prose. Yet the prophets of the golden age belong almost entirely to the poets. The later prophets, for example, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, first approach the prosaic style."

3. By the very nature of the Hebrew language, it is impossible to distinguish sharply what belongs to this or to the following period; besides, this is not the place. In general, only the following can be affirmed with any probability: Of the larger historical writings, the Pentateuch, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and the Kings, may be reckoned in this class; at least the chief portions of them were composed in this period, though it is still necessary to suppose there was a later redaction, and an addition of single parts was made. The collection of Psalms, especially in its first books, contains, doubtless, many old pieces from David, or his school. However, the greater part of them are a production of later times. It is often very difficult to decide in particular cases; for later poets often imitate, very successfully, the language of the earlier, and sometimes,

• On the rhythm, see De Wette, Introduction to the Psalms, in Bib. Repository, vol. iii. p. 445, sqq. G. I. L. Vogel, De dialectico Poet. V. T.; Helmst. 1784. Abarbenel, in Ex. xv. Preface to Gesenius's Lexicon, in the Bib. Rep. vol. ii. 1. c. Some peculiar words are used in poetry, for which we find different terms in prose; e. g. i, for D, man; N, for Nin, to come;, for, to show; b, i, antiquity; Ding, for D, water.

for

› a word; 7p, for

1. To the signification of words belongs the use of adjectives for substantives, applied to a definite subject; e. g., the Strong, i. e. God;

N,

the strong, i. e. an ox;, the only, the favorite, used for life, &c. &c.; besides,,, and , for kingdom of Israel, Israel in general, and Edom, &c.

2. To the form of words. -, for D, God;, for, to be;

and מִנִּי ;ים days, for the termination in ,רָמוֹת ; years, שָׁבוֹת ; People, עֲמָמִים

3, for ;, for, of me;, for, will go.

3. Grammatical forms and affixes. The paragogic letters, -, -, and, the first in stat. absol., the latter as nomen regens, the suffixes to ; e. g. in,

is and, for ; the use of Piel and Hiphil as intransitive, the future apocopate for the common forms, use of the participle of the finite verb, irregu. larities of number and case, ellipsis of the prepositions, &c.

The 33d chapter of Deuteronomy must have been added in later times; v. 7 could scarcely have been written at any time except during the exile.