ered vestiges of the time when this subject was deliberated upon. At a later date, we have no account of the critical treatment of the text. How little do we know of the origin of the Masora!

"The Masorites frequently remark upon anomalous and rare punctuation. How could they do this if they were the authors of this punctuation? Would they not have amended the anomaly, instead of pointing it out?" But it is well known this change in the text was not effected all at the same time, but gradually. In the course of one or more centuries, an invention of an earlier grammarian might have acquired such esteem, and have so much of superstition on its side, that no one would venture to change it, and a mystery might be sought in what was at first only an accidental anomaly. The same took place with the greater and smaller letters, and the extraordinary points, &c.

a

Finally, it is said, "The Karaites, who separated from the rabbins before the composition of the Talmud, have the complete system of punctuation, which they would not have received from their opponents if it were of recent origin. This fact, therefore, favors the high antiquity of the vowel points." But even if this sect existed, there is certainly ample room for controversy whether it existed as perfectly separated and completed at that high antiquity. And when the Karaites themselves place the antiquity of their sect, and the existence of the vowel points, so high, it is only by reasoning, inference, and pretension to antiquity, and not as a fact. But the fact that they make no scruples to use even printed books with points, shows that they did not, like the rabbins, regard every unessential novelty as profane.

4. The names of the Hebrew vowels, for the most part, correspond in their etymology to those of the Arabians, (and Syrians,) and therefore it is probable there was an historical connection between them. The copiousness of the former shows, perhaps, they were later than the others. But the fact that several of the later vowels are sometimes comprised under the same name shows, perhaps, that this copiousness was of gradual growth.......

G

Triglandus, De Secta Karæorum, p. 20.

Morinus, 1. c. Exercit. vii. Carpzov, 1. c. 252. Leusden, 1. c. 124. Robertson, 1. c. p. 54. Wolf, Notitia

Karaitorum, p. 112, 152.

$7.

EXAMINATION AND VALUE OF THE MASORETIC VOCALIZATION.

If the pronunciation of the old Hebrew, according to this theory, was continued and preserved by tradition, for a considerable time, before it was fixed by characters, the important question arises, How much of the true pronunciation have we preserved? Does this system restore us the true pronunciation of the old Hebrew, at least in general, and upon the whole, or is it a work of conjecture and caprice? Has it any authority in particular cases, or can the interpreter forsake and abandon it at pleasure? We think these questions may receive an answer that is favorable to the vowel system; and, in what follows, shall attempt to prove it. But first, we will examine the principal objections to it.

a

1. "The subtile and pedantic character of the system proves it is the invention of some grammarians, who, from want of a just knowledge of the pronunciation, took that of the Aramæan as their standard." This subtilty, which is almost inconceivable in a living language, renders us certain it is the work of painstaking grammarians, but does not destroy the correctness of the tradition on which the system rests.

2. "The pronunciation of the proper names in the Seventy (which, in part, follows different principles) is against it, and leads to a pronunciation which is more perfect, richer in vowels, and like the Arabic." b It is certain the two systems of pronunciation differ from one another, like two dialects; but neither is to be rejected on that account. Doubtless we have two methods of pronouncing the Hebrew; one was current at Alexandria, the other in Palestine. They differ like two dialects, and have the same relation to one another that the written language of the Arabians - which is fulltoned and rich in vowels-has to their popular language, which is

a So decide Elias Levita, R. Simon, Eichhorn, De Wette, and Bellermann. Jo. Morinus, p. 509. St. Morinus, p. 380, sqq. Is. Vossius, Respons. ad Simon, p. 192. Cappellus, Vindiciæ, p. 841. Eichhorn, Allg. Bib. vol. vi. p. 384. Greve, Vaticinia Nahumi et Habac.; Amst. 1793, 4to., his Ultima Capit. Jobi, pt. i.-ii.; 1788-1791, 4to.

Tychsen (Tentamen, p. 132, sqq., 153) brings historical arguments to show that there was an Alexandrian dialect of the Hebrew; but they will not bear examination. Masch follows him, Bib. sac. pt. ii. vol. ii. p. 35.

more like the Hebrew and Syriac. Jerome expressly says the Hebrew vowels were pronounced differently in different regions, and the greatest difference in the Arabic coins is in their vocalization. Origen also adheres to the Alexandrian pronunciation; but the Palestine system of the Masorites has some important arguments in its favor. The tradition, it is likely, would be preserved more pure in the native country; and again, the Palestine Jews have a great superiority over the Greek Jews, in general, in respect to the conscientious preservation of traditional matter, and in all other respects."

3. "The present vocalization of the proper names, particularly such as are not Hebrew, does not agree with the pronunciation as we learn it from other sources, and in part with certainty." But who knows how often the form of proper names has been changed, and even so far changed that it cannot be known, when they have been transferred to other languages? This is the case particularly in reference to the Oriental word 77, Greece, which the Arabians and Syrians, as well as our punctators, pronounce Javan. But in other cases, as in the Persian words and, without doubt, the Hebrew comes nearer the vernacular pronunciation. Still more confidently we might appeal to the original Hebrew words which the Greeks received from the Jews, and pronounced differently from the present punctuation. But who can assure us the word underwent no alteration in the mouth of the Greeks? Do not the living Oriental languages differ very much in the use of the vowels? But, above all, did not the Greeks receive these words directly from the Phonicians, whose dialect did not coincide with the Hebrew in all minor respects? . . . . . .

4. "In many places, it is opposed to the analogy of the Hebrew language, which, if we may judge from the consonants, adhered rather to the Arabic; but the punctuation follows the Aramæ an." d "d It is

a Jo. Morinus, p. 509, sqq.

¿ E. g. 17, Iwv, as if i, Greece; ib, xûgos, as if ; 27777, Aagios, as if 7; 18, more correctly in the LXX. and Coptic version, Floer, 1; 1777, 'Iógdavns, as if 177;, Hóluμa, as if D, &c. See Lexicon, sub voc. See Hyde, Rel. vet. Pers. p. 43-67, and Bight, Præf. ad Opp. Lightfoot, vol. i. p. 6.

с

E. g., σσwлos;, ßeros; jin2, xúμvov.

d See Hutchinson, Works, vol. vii. p. 256, sqq. Many English grammarians followed him; e. g. Sharp, Parkhurst, and Bates; and, of the Germans, Adelung, Mithridates, vol. i. p. 363. See Wahl, 1. c. p. 492.

a

much to be wished that some of the authors of this statement had attempted to furnish proof of it. But the statement of another inquirer, equally learned, "that the punctators borrowed their punctuation from the Arabic," shows how little force this proposition has. The Arabic and the Aramæan are similar, and must be; but they are not, on that account, dependent upon one another. The decisions of a Hutchinson and Masclef deserve not the slightest respect, who, among other assertions, declare the whole conjugation piel to be a whimsey of the punctators, as if its peculiar inflections were not as well expressed in the consonants, for example, in the participle.

$8.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

The positive arguments which speak in favor of the accuracy of the masoretic vowel system, at least as a whole, are found, on the one hand, in the analogous pronunciation of the Arabic and Aramaan languages, so nearly related to the Hebrew, which, it seems, never copied or gave a preference to either; and, on the other, in its consistency and independence in those passages where it differs from both of these.

To this must be added the frequent agreement between the matres lectionis in the Samaritan and Hebrew manuscripts. We conceive the sources of it, in general, to be—the tradition of the schools in Palestine and Babylon; the Hebrew grammar, even if it were unknown as a science to both of them; the connection of certain passages; the traditionary explanations long received in the Jewish academies and versions, and particularly the Targums. We will now proceed to an examination of these separate arguments.

1. Agreeable to a pregnant remark, that was long ago made, the Hebrew language, in respect to its entire structure, its grammar, and its vocabulary, stands midway between the Aramæan and the Arabic. The consonants show this relation between them; but it appears more distinctly in the vowels, and the masoretic system, which is confirmed by the thorough analogy of the two languages, and by its adhesion sometimes to one, and sometimes to the other. Now, the ground of this agreement does not lie in the punctator's knowledge of these

a Jo. Morinus, 1. c. p. 535.

two languages, or the comparison he made of them, but in a constant tradition..

......

2. As, on the other hand, every dialect, in its relation to other cognate languages, maintains its own individuality and peculiarities, and since this is the case with the Hebrew, in respect to grammatical structure, usage, &c., so the same relation shows itself in the punctuation, while, as a whole, and in particulars, it differs, in essential points, from the punctuation of the cognate languages. But it differs from them with a consistency and independence which can only be the result of certain knowledge, not of vague conjecture and caprice. In respect to most of these phenomena, at least an analogy may be pointed out in the circle of the Shemitish languages.

......

We might safely trust an authority which, according to what has hitherto been said, has produced so great an influence on the knowledge of this language, even if it does not produce proofs, which, in many cases, it is not possible to do. But positive grounds of confirmation may be found for many of these statements; for example,

3. In the analogy of the Hebrew language itself, so far as it can be known from the consonants. . . . . . .

4. In the matres lectionis, as they are called, in particular Hebrew and Samaritan manuscripts. Some of these are at least ancient. It is natural there should be traces of difference and disparity in respect to a matter which depended merely on tradition and usage; yet this disagreement does not penetrate deep into the system, neither does it injure its consistency, for instances of this kind would naturally precede the formation of the system. Even prudent grammarians have allowed themselves many doubts and alterations in the case of grammatical anomalies of a similar kind, where the anomalous grammatical form seems to stand alone. But here, too much caution cannot be recommended; for many of these anomalies are supported by the analogy of the language itself, or, at least, by that of the cognate dialects, and therefore any alteration would be uncertain and hazardous.

$9.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

All the previous remarks on the vowel system relate only to its effect upon the language, and to the general value of the pronunciation of the old Hebrew, which this system has fixed. There is another question, which relates to the choice among the different