27

Noah,

66

an

4. There must have been a tradition to the same purpose among the Chaldeans, since the writers who have copied from Berosus, the celebrated Chaldean historian (0), speak of alphabetical writing as an art well known among the antediluvians. According to them, Oannes the Chaldean legislator gave his disciples insight into letters and science. This person also wrote concerning the generation of mankind, of their different pursuits, of civil polity, &c. Immediately before the deluge (say they) the god Cronus appeared to Sisuthrus or Xisuthrus, and commanded him to commit to writing the beginning, improvement, and conclusion of all things down to the present term, and to bury these accounts securely in the temple of the Sun at Seppara." All these traditions may be deemed fabulous in the main; but still they evince that such an opinion was current, and that though the use of letters was not indeed eternal (P), it was, however, prior to all the records of history; and of course, we think, an antediluvian discovery.

The origiThis original alphabet, whatever it was, and however nal alpha- constructed, was, we think, preserved in the family of bet preser- Noah, and from it conveyed down to succeeding geneved in the family of rations. If we can then discover the original Hebrew alphabet, we shall be able to investigate the primary species of letters expressive of those articulate sounds by which man is in a great measure distinguished from the brute creation. Whatever might be the nature of that alphabet, we may be convinced that the ancient Jews deemed it sacred, and therefore preserved it pure and unmixed till the Babylonish captivity. If, then, any monuments are still extant inscribed with letters prior to that event, we may rest assured that these are the remains of the original alphabet.

There have, from time to time, been dug up at Jeru

Hebrew

salem, and other parts of Judea, coins and medals, and medallions, inscribed with letters of a form very differ- Language. ent from those square letters in which the Hebrew Scriptures are now written.

28

When the Samaritan Pentateuch was discovered (Q), The same it evidently appeared that the inscriptions on those me- with the dals and coins were drawn in genuine Samaritan cha- Samaritan. racters. The learned abbé Barthelemi, in his * disser- † Mem. de tation" on the two medals of Antigonus king of Judea, "Academ. one of the later Asmonean princes, proves that all the de In scrip. &c.. inscriptions on the coins and medals of Jonathan and Simon Maccabeus, and also on his, were invariably in the Samaritan character, down to the 40th year before the Christian era.

It were easy to prove, from the Mishna and Jerusalem Talmud, that the Scriptures publicly read in the synagogues to the end of the second century were written in the Samaritan character, we mean in the same character with the Pentateuch in question. As the ancient Hebrew, however, ceased to be the vulgar language of the Jews after the return from the Babylonish Which af captivity, the copies of the Bible, especially in private terwards gave place hands, were accompanied with a Chaldaic paraphrase; to the Chaland at length the original Hebrew character fell into daic. disuse, and the Chaldaic was universally adopted.

It now appears that the letters inscribed on the ancient coins and medals of the Jews were written in the Samaritan form, and that the Scriptures were written in the very same characters: we shall therefore leave it to our readers to judge whether (considering the implacable hatred which subsisted between these two nations) it be likely that the one copied from the other; or at least that the Jews preferred to the beautiful letters used by their ancestors, the rude and inelegant characters of their most detested rivals. If, then, the inscriptions on the coins and medals were actually in the characters of the Samaritan Pentateuch (and it is absurd to suppose that the Jews borrowed them from the Samaritans), the consequence plainly is, that the letters of the inscriptions were those of the original Hebrew alphabet, coeval with that language, which we dare to maintain was the first upon earth.

It may, perhaps, be thought rather superfluous to mention, that the Samaritan colonists, whom the kings of Assyria planted in the cities of Samaria (R), were natives of countries where Chaldaic letters were current, and who were probably ignorant of the Hebrew langnage and characters. When those colonists embraced the Jewish religion, they procured a copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch written in its native character, which, from superstition, they preserved inviolate as they received

29

these points, they yet allow them a pretty high antiqui- Hebrew ty, ascribing them to Ezra and the members of the great Language. synagogue.

Hebrew ceived it; and from it were copied successively the others Language. which were current in Syria and Palestine when Archbishop Usher procured his.

Chron. in

anno 4740 † Præf. 1. Reg

30

From the reasons above exhibited, we hope it will appear, that if the Hebrew alphabet, as it appears in the Samaritan Pentateuch, was not the primitive one, it was at least that in which the Holy Scriptures were first committed to writing.

Scaliger has inferred, from a passage in Eusebius*, and another in St Jerome t, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church, transcribed the Scriptures from the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square Which was letters of the Chaldeans. This, he thinks, was done for intro luced the use of those Jews who, being born during the captiby Ezra. vity, knew no other alphabet than that of the people among whom they were educated. This account of the matter, though probable in itself, and supported by passages from both Talmuds, has been attacked by Buxtorf with great learning and no less acrimony. Scaliger, however, has been followed by a crowd of learned men (s), whose opinion is now pretty generally espoused by the sacred critics.

Having said so much concerning the Hebrew alphabet in the preceding pages, we find ourselves laid under a kind of necessity of hazarding a few strictures on the vowels and Masoretic points; the first essential, and the last an appendage, of that ancient language. The number of the one, and the nature, antiquity, and necessity of the other, in order to read the language with propriety and with discrimination, have been the subject of much and often illiberal controversy among philological writers. To enter into a minute detail of the arguments on either side, would require a complete volume: we shall, therefore, briefly exhibit the state of the controversy, and then adduce a few observations, which, in our opinion, ought to determine the question.

The controversy then is, Whether the Hebrews used any vowels; or whether the points, which are now called by that name, were substituted instead of them? or if they were, whether they be as old as Moses, or were invented by Ezra, or by the Masorites (T)? This controversy has exercised the wits of the most learned critics of the two last centuries, and is still far enough from being determined in the present. The Jews maintain, that these vowel points (U) were delivered to Moses along with the tables of the law; and consequently hold them as sacred as they do the letters themselves. Many Christian authors who have handled this subject, though they do not affirm their divine original, nor their extravagant antiquity, pretend, however, that they are the only proper vowels in the language, and regulate and ascertain its true pronunciation. Though they differ from the Jews with respect to the origin of

32

At length, however, about the middle of the 16th The Masocentury, Elias Levita, a learned German Jew who then retic points flourished at Rome, discovered the delusion, and made a modern it appear that these appendages had never been in use invention. till after the writing of the Talmuds, about 500 years after Christ. This innovation raised Elias a multitude of adversaries, both of his own countrymen and Christians. Among the latter appeared the two Buxtorfs, the father and the son, who produced some cabbalistical books of great antiquity (x), at least in the opinion of the Jews, in which there was express mention of the points. The Buxtorfs were answered by Capellus and other critics, till Father Morinos †, having examined Walton, Dupin, and all that had been urged on both sides, produced his Vossius, learned dissertation on that subject; against which there + Dissert. has been nothing replied of any consequence, whilst his Bibl. work has been universally admired, and his opinion confirmed by those that have beaten the same field after bim.

According to this learned father, it plainly appears that neither Origen, nor St Jerome, nor even the compilers of the Talminds, knew any thing of what has been called the vowel points; and yet these books, according to the same author, were not finished till the seventh century. Even the Jewish rabbis who wrote

during the eighth and ninth centuries, according to him, were not in the least acquainted with these points. He adds, that the first vestiges he could trace of them were in the writings of Rabbi Ben Aber chief of the western, and of Rabbi Ben Naphtali chief of the eastern school, that is, about the middle of the tenth century; so that they can hardly be said to be older than the beginning of that period.

Some learned men (Y) have ascribed the invention of the vowel points in question to the rabbis of the school of Tiberias; which, according to them, flourished about the middle of the second century. This opinion is by no means probable, because it appears plain from history, that before that period all the Jewish seminaries in that province were destroyed, and their heads forced into exile. Some of these retired into Babylonia, and settled at Sora, Naherds, and Pombeditha, where they established famous universities. After this era, there remained no more any rabbinical schools in Judæa, headed by professors capable of undertaking this difficult operation, nor indeed of sufficient authority to recommend it to general practice, had they been ever so thoroughly qualified for executing it.

Capellus and Father Morin, who contend for the late introduction of the vowel-points, acknowledge

that

above.

33

Lectionis.

tongue: Nor do we think that the natives of the coun- Hebrew try would find it a matter of much difficulty to learn Language. to read without the help of the vowels. They knew the words beforehand, and so might readily enough learn by practice what vowels were to be inserted.

Hebrew that there can certainly be no language without vocal Language. sounds, which are indeed the soul and essence of speech; but they affirm that the Hebrew alphabet actually contains vowel characters, as well as the Greek and Latin and the alphabets of modern Europe. These are aleph, The matres he, vau, jod. These they call the matres lectionis, or, if you please, the parents of reading. To these some, we think very properly, add ain or oin, ajin. These, they conclude, perform exactly the same office in Hebrew that their descendants do in Greek. It is indeed agreed upon all hands, that the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician, which is known to be the same with the Samaritan or Hebrew. This position we shall prove more fully when we come to trace the origin of the Greek tongue. Hitherto the analogy is not only plausible, but the resemblance precise. The Hebrews and Samaritans employed these vowels exactly in the same manner with the Greeks; and so all was easy and natural.

34 Objections answered.

But the assertors of the Masoretic system maintain that the letters mentioned above are not vowels but consonants or aspirations, or any thing you please but vocal letters. This they endeavour to prove from their use among the Arabians, Persians, and other oriental nations: But to us it appears abundantly strange to suppose that the Greeks pronounced beta, gamma, delta, &c. exactly as the Hebrews and the Phoenicians did, and yet at the same time did not adopt their mode of pronunciation with respect to the five letters under consideration. To this argument we think every objection must undoubtedly yield. The Greeks borrowed their letters from the Phoenicians; these letters were the Hebrew or Samaritan. The Greeks wrote and (z) pronounced all the other letters of their alphabet, except the five in question, in the same manner with their originals of the east: if they did so, it obviously follows that the Greek and oriental office of these letters was the same.

Another objection to reading the Hebrew without the aid of the Masoretic vowel points, arises from the consideration, that without these there will be a great number of radical Hebrew words, both nouns and verbs, without any vowel intervening amongst the consonants, which is certainly absurd. Notwithstanding this supposed absurdity, it is a well known fact, that all the copies of the Hebrew Scripture, used in the Jewish synagogues throughout the world, are written or printed without points. These copies are deemed sacred, and kept in a coffer with the greatest care, in allusion to the ark of the testimony in the tabernacle and temple. The prefect, however, reads the portions of the law and hagiographa without any difficulty. The same is done by the remains of the Samaritans at this day. Every oriental scholar knows that the people of these countries look upon consonants as the stamina of words. Accordingly, in writing letters, in dispatches upon business, and all affairs of small moment, the vowels are generally omitted. It is obvious, that in every original language the sound of the vowels is variable and of little importance. Such was the case with the Hebrew

When the Hebrew became a dead language, as it certainly was in a great measure to the vulgar after the return from the Babylonish captivity; such subsidiaries might we think, have been useful, and of course might possibly have been adopted for the use of the vulgar: but the scribe, the lawyer, and the learned rabbi, probably disdained such beggarly elements. We shall in this place hazard a conjecture, which, to us at least, is altogether new. We imagine that the Phonicians, who were an inventive, ingenious people, had, prior to the age of Cadmus, who first brought their letters into Greece, adopted the more commodious method of inserting the vowels in their proper places; whereas the Jews, zealously attached to the customs of their ancestors, continued to write and read without them. In this manner the Gephurai*, who were the followers Herod. of Cadmus, communicated them to the Jones their lib. i. neighbours. We are convinced that the materials ofcap. 56. the Greek tongue are to be gleaned up in the east; and upon that ground have often endeavoured to trace the origin of Greek words in the Hebrew, Phoenician, Chaldean, and Arabian languages. Reading without the vowel points we have seldom failed in our search ; but when we followed the method of reading by the Masoretic points, we seldom succeeded; and this, we Proof that believe, every man of tolerable erudition who will the Masomake a trial will find by experience to be true. This relic points argument appears to us superior to every objection. dern. Upon this basis, the most learned Bochart has erected his etymological fabric, which will be admired by the learned and ingenious as long as philology shall be cul-tivated by men.

It has been urged by the zealots for the Masoretic system, that the Arabians and Persians employ the vowel points. That they do so at present is readily granted; but whether they did so from the beginning seems to be the question. That Arabia was overspread with Jewish exiles at a very early period, is abundantly certain. It was natural for them to retire to a land where they would not hear of war nor the sound of the trumpet. Accordingly we find that, prior to the age of the Arabian impostor, Arabia swarmed with Jewish settlements. From these Jews, it is highly probable that their neighbours learned the use of the points in question; which in the course of their conquests the Saracens communicated to the Persians.

It has been alleged with great show of reason, that without the vowel points, it is often impossible to develope the genuine signification of many words which occur frequently in the language: many words of different and sometimes opposite significations are written with exactly the same consonants. Without the points, then, how are we to know the distinction? In answer to this objection, we beg leave to observe, that, during the first period of a language, it is impossible that there should

35

are mo

read. VOL. XVI. Part I.

Hebrew should not occur a number of similar sounds of differLanguage. ent significations. This is surely to be attributed to the

parti. book i.

poverty of the language. When a few terms have been once fabricated, men will rather annex new significations to old terms, than be at the expense of time or thought to invent new ones. This must have been the case with the Hebrew in particular; and indeed no language on earth is without instances of this inconveniency, which, however, in a living tongue, is easily overcome by a difference of accent, tone, gesture, pronunciation; all which, we think, might obviate the difficulty.

From the preceding arguments, we think ourselves authorised to infer that the Masora is a novel systom, utterly unknown to the most ancient Jews, and never admitted into those copies of the Scriptures which were deemed most sacred and most authentic by that people.

With respect to the original introduction of the *Connect. points, we agree with the learned and judicious * Dr Prideaux, who imagines that there were gradually introduced after the Hebrew became a dead language, with a view to facilitate the learning to read that language, more especially among the vulgar. By whom they were introduced, we think, cannot easily be determined; nor is it probable that they were all introduced at once, or by one and the same person. They have been ascribed to Ezra by many, for no other reason that we can discover but to enhance their authenticity, and because the sentiment is analogous to the other articles of reformation established by that holy priest. If our curious reader should not be satisfied with the preceding detail, we must remit him to Capellus and Morinus on the one side, and the two Buxtorfs, Schultens, and Dr James Robertson late professor of oriental languages in the university of Edinburgh, on the other. This learned orientalist, in his dissertation prefixed to his Clavis Pentateuchi, has collected and arranged, with the true spirit of criticism, every thing that has been advanced in favour of the Masoretical system. Si Pergama dextra defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent.

35

From Origen's Hexapla,

St Origen, who flourished about the beginning of the 3d century, was a profound Hebrew scholar. He published a most laborious and learned work, which is generally called the Hexapla, because it consisted of six columns; the first of which contained the Hebrew text; the second, the same text, but written in Greek characters the third column exbibited the version of Aquila; the fourth that of Symmachus; the fifth, the Septuagint; and the sixth, the version of Theodotan. In some fragments of that vast work which are still extant, we have a specimen of the manner in which the Hebrew was pronounced in the third century, by which it appears that it was very different from that which results from observing the Masoretical points. The following is an instance copied from the beginning of Genesis.

According to ORIGEN.

Brêsith bara Elôeim eth asamaim oueth aares. Ouaares aietha Thôau. oubcou ouôsekh al phne The ôm ourouê elôeim maraepheth al pbne anaim. Quiômer elôeim iei ôr ouiei ôr.

37

Upon the whole, we presume to give it as our opinion, that in the most early periods, the vowels, aleph, he, jod or you, vaw or waw, and perhaps oin or ajin, were regularly written wherever they were sounded. This to us appears plain from the practice of the an- and the cient Greeks. It is agreed on all hands that the Sa-practice of maritan and Phoenician alphabets were the same; and the ancient that the former was that of the Jews originally. The Greeks, Phoenicians certainly wrote the vowels exactly, for so did the Greeks who copied their alphabet: If the Phoenicians wrote their vowels, so then did the Jews of the age of Cadmus; but Cadmus was contemporary with some of the earliest judges of Israel; the consequence is evident, namely, that the Jews wrote their vowels as late as the arrival of that colony-chief in Greece. We ought naturally to judge of the Hebrew by the Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabian, its sister dialects. All these languages in ancient times had their vowels regularly inserted; and why not the Hebrew in the same manner with the rest?

As these first vowels which were coeval with the other letters, often varied in their sound and application, the points, in all appearance, were first invented and employed to ascertain their different sounds in different connections. Other marks might be invented to point out the various tones of voice, like the revo, or accents, with which the vowels were to be enounced, as was done among the later Greeks. In process of time, in order to promote celerity of writing, the vowels were omitted, and the points substituted in their place.

Before we conclude our observations on the Hebrew language, we ought, perhaps, to make an apology for omitting to interlard our details with quotations from the two Talmuds, the Mishna, the Gemara, the Cabbalas, and a multitude of rabbinical writers who are commonly cited upon such an occasion. We believe we could have quoted almost numberless passages from the two Buxtorfs, Father Morin, Capellus, and other Hebrew critics, with no great trouble to ourselves, and little emolument to the far greater part of our readers. But our opinion is that such a pedantic display of philological erudition would probably have excited the mirth of our learned, and roused the indignation of our unlearned, readers. Our wish is, to gratify readers of both descriptions, by contributing to the edification of one class without disgusting the other.

We cannot, we imagine, fairly take leave of the sacred language, without giving a brief detail of those excellencies, which, in our opinion, give it a just claim to the superiority over those other tongues which have sometimes contended with it for the prize of anti

Hebrew quity and of these the following in our apprehension Language deserve particular notice.

38

If this language may claim any advantage over its Excellen- antagonists, with respect to its being rather a mother cies of the than a daughter to any of them, it is undoubtedly in Hebrew consequence of its simplicity, its purity, its energy, its language. fecundity of expressions and significations. In all these, notwithstanding its paucity of words, it excels the vast variety of other languages which are its cognate dialects. To these we may add the significancy of the names, both of men and brutes; the nature and properties of the latter of which are more clearly and more fully exhibited by their names in this than in any other tongue hitherto known. Besides, its well authenticated antiquity and the venerable tone of its writings surpass any thing left upon record in any other dialect now extant in the world. These extraordinary qualities excite our admiration at present under every disadvantage; and from this circumstance we may infer its incomparable beauty in the age of the Jewish legislator, and what effects it would naturally produce, could we know it now as it was spoken and written in the days of David and Solomon.

As far, however, as we understand it in its present mutilated condition, and are able to judge of its character from those few books that have come down to our time, we plainly perceive that its genius is simple, primitive, natural, and exactly conformable to the character of those uncultivated patriarchs who used it themselves, and transmitted it to their descendants in its native purity and simplicity. Its words are comparatively few, yet concise and expressive; derived from a very small number of radicals, without the artificial composition of modern languages. No tongue, ancient or modern, can rival it in the happy and rich fecundity of its verbs, resulting from the variety and significancy of its conjugations; which are so admirably arranged and diversified, that by changing a letter or two of the primitive, they express the various modes of acting, suffering, motion, rest, &c. in such a precise and significant manner, that frequently in one word they convey an idea which, in any other language, would require a tedious paraphrase. These positions might easily be illustrated by numerous examples; but to the Hebrew scholar these would be superfluous, and to the illiterate class neither interesting nor entertaining.

To these we may add the monosyllabic tone of the language, which, by a few prefixes and affixes without affecting the radix, varies the signification almost at pleasure, while the method of affixing the person to the verb exbibits the gender of the object introduced. In the nouns of this language there is no flexion except what is necessary to point out the difference of gender and number. Its cases are distinguished by articles, which are only single letters at the beginning of the word: the pronouns are only single letters affixed; and the prepositions are of the same character prefixed to words. Its words follow one another in an easy and natural arrangement, without intricacy or transposition, transposition, without suspending the attention or involving the sense by intricate and artificial periods. All these striking and peculiar excellencies combined, plainly demonstrate the beauty, the stability, and antiquity of the language under consideration.

We would not, however, be thought to insinuate Hebrew that this tongue continued altogether without changes Language. and imperfections. We admit that many radical words of it were lost in a course of ages, and that foreign ones were substituted in their place. The long sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt, and their close connection with that people, even quoad sacra, must have introduced a multitude of Egyptian vocables and phrases into the vulgar dialect at least, which must have gradually incorporated with the written language, and in process of time have become part of its essence. In Egypt, the Israelites imbibed those principles of idolatry which nothing less than the final extirpation of their polity could eradicate. If that people were so obstinately attached to the Egyptian idolatry, it is not very probable that they would be averse from the Egyptian language. Besides, the Scripture informs us, that there came up out of Egypt a mixed multitude; a circumstance which must have infected the Hebrew tongue with the dialect of Egypt. As none of the genuine Hebrew radicals exceed three letters, whatever words exceed that number in their radical state may be justly deemed of foreign extraction.

Some Hebrew critics have thought that verbs constitute the radicals of the whole language; but this opinion appears to us ill founded: for though many Hebrew nouns are undoubtedly derived from verbs, we find at the same time numbers of the latter deduced from the former.

39

Before we conclude our detail of the Hebrew tongue, Hutchins a few of our readers may possibly imagine that we niansim. ought to give some account of the Hutchinsonian system; a system so highly in vogue not many years ago. But as this allegorical scheme of interpretation is now in a manner exploded, we shall beg leave to remit our curious Hebraist to Mr Holloway's Originals, a small book in 2 vols 8vo, but replete with multifarious erudition, especially in the Hutchinsonian style and character.-Fides sit penes autorem.

SECT. II. The Arabic Language.

brew.

40

WE now proceed to give some account of the Arabian Arabic Inulanguage, which is evidently one of the sister dialects guage oriof the Hebrew. Both, we imagine, were originally ginally Ilethe same; the former highly improved and enlarged; the latter, in appearance, retaining its original simplicity and rude aspect, spoken by a people of a genius by no means inventive. In this inquiry, too, as in the former, we shall spare ourselves the trouble of descending to the grammatical minutiæ of the tongue; a method which, we are persuaded, would neither gratify our learned nor edify our unlearned readers. To those who are inclined to acquire the first elements of that various, copious, and highly improved tongue, we beg to recommend Erpenii RudimentaLing. Arab.; Golii Gram. Arab.; the Dissertations of Hariri, translated by the elder Schultens; Mr Richardson's Persic and Arabic Gram. &c.

We have pronounced the Hebrew, and Arabian sister dialects; a relation which, as far as we know, has been seldom controverted but we think there is authentic historical evidence that they were positively one and the same, at a period when the one as well as the Pp 2 other

1