critics, as to the antiquity of the Hebrew letters | unparalleled assiduity to the grammar and cri

now in common use. There is good reason to think that they are substantially the same in form as those originally used in the writing of the Aramaic languages. For, as in the East, the art of writing was in use from the very earliest times, so the same mode of writing these ancient languages always prevailed; which, in the course of time, acquired some diversity in its form, among the different nations to which it was common, but among the Hebrews deviated less from its original form than among the other nations. The letters originally used by the Hebrews were probably more rudely shaped, and in that form continued to be written down to the time of the Babylonian captivity. On the return of the people to Judea, their alphabetic characters underwent some change, by which they were rendered more elegant in their form, but without destroying their identity. This revision of the Hebrew alphabet is with some reason attributed to Ezra, the great Jewish reformer.

ticism of the sacred books. Their object was to transmit to posterity the ancient pronunciation of the words; and, certainly no better method than that of points could be adopted for this purpose. The letters, called matres lectionis, or the principal helps for reading without points, are an invention of modern times, to supply, in some measure, the place of the points.

(6) Nor do the diacritic points, attached to some letters, seem to have been originally employed, although they are certainly, for the most part, adapted to the ancient mode of pronunciation; as, for instance, the point of the letter wor, dagesh or mappik. The Arabians and Syrians have points of the same kind, the invention of modern times.

(7) The unchanging nature of the Hebrew language, as observable in almost all the writings of the Old Testament, deserves to be remarked. In the great diversity of ages and authors, and of style, both prose and poetical, this language retains the highest similarity. In the writings composed before the Babylonian captivity, very little change is observable in it. But after the Hebrews had been expelled from their country, and were scattered among other nations, they were unable to regain the original purity and strength of their language, even in the best times after their restoration to their country. At last, in consequence of the vicissitudes to which they were subjected, and particularly the final destruction of their state by the Romans, the Hebrew language went altogether out of common use, so that even the more learned and skilful Jews were unable, in their writings, to exhibit its native image when now dead.

(4) Of the final Hebrew letters we have no means of determining the antiquity. It is thought that they were in use before the Alexandrian version was made, being originally employed to express numbers greater than those denoted by the common letters of the alphabet, and subsequently placed at the end of words, as a matter of taste for the eye. (5) The vowel points have long been a subject of controversy, sometimes very bitterly carried on, among the friends of biblical literature. Happily, the controversy may now be considered as closed, and infinitely more important points, touching the philosophy of the language and the science of Scripture, have secured the public attention. There is reason to think that the ancient Hebrews had certain marks for vowels, which, where it seemed necessary, might be attached to the letters; but which, like those used by the Arabians at the pre-language; consequently these writings are the only sent day, and by the ancient Syrians, were very few, probably only three, and those of the most simple form. But it is by no means probable that vowel marks of any sort were of the same high antiquity with the letters. Small ports were, perhaps, first added to some words, by which the liversity of pronunciation and signification were indicated. These, in process of time, are likely to have given rise to the vowel points; which were the invention of the Masorites or other learned Jews in later ages, who applied themselves with

Jesus, although it may have been only at a subsequent period that they, in their vocation as messengers of the gospel, rendered themselves more perfect masters of it, so as to be able to express in writing their thoughts in that language." --Biblical Cabinet, vol. ii. pp. 87--90. It is right that we should apprise

(8) The Hebrew writings comprised in the Old Testament, are the only ones that remain in that

pure source whence a knowledge of the language is to be derived. These, however, will be insufficient in some cases to fix the undoubted meaning of words, especially of those words that are but seldom used. We must, therefore, seek for such additional assistance as we can find; and our safest and most useful resort is to the allied and cognate oriental languages; these being so many dialects of the same original tongue, which, though having peculiarities belonging to each, are radically or primarily the same. The following are the chief

the reader of the objections urged against Pfannkuche's hypothesis, in the tenth section of the first chapter of the second part of Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, p. 32, of the second volume of Wait's translation.

of these, the Arabic, Aramæan, Samaritan, and Ethiopic; to which some add the Talmudic and Rabbinical.*

(9) The Hebrew language is allowed to possess great simplicity and expressiveness. Of all known languages it is the best adapted to indicate the nature and qualities of objects; and this circumstance, taken in conjunction with the great conformity subsisting between it and our own language, both in structure and in the mode of expression, renders its attainment comparatively easy. The construction of Hebrew words in a sentence enjoys the advantage of being extremely simple, and is free from the elliptical and irregular phraseology that often perplexes the student in other languages. The words commonly stand in their natural order; and sentences admit of being translated into English without any change of the arrangement. The chief exception is, that the nominatives very frequently follow their verbs, and the adjectives their substantives. The rules are few; and the exceptions are not numerous.

13. We may not improperly nor unprofitably close this section with some account of the various schools of Hebrew philology. The following are the principal of these:

the use to be made of the versions and cognate dialects, laid it down as an incontrovertible principle of Hebrew philology, that a perfect knowledge of the language is to be derived from the sacred text alone, by consulting the connexion, comparing the parallel passages, and transposing and changing the Hebrew letters, especially such as are similar in figure. His system was either wholly adopted and extended, or, in part, followed by Bohl, Gusset, Driessen, Stock, and others, whose lexicons all proceed on this self-interpreting principle; but its insufficiency has been shown by J. D. Michaëlis, in his 'Investigation of the means to be employed in order to attain to a knowledge of the dead language of the Hebrews,' and by Bauer, in his Hermeneut. V. T.

3. The Avenarian school, which proceeds on the principle that the Hebrew, being the primitive language, from which all others have been derived, may be explained by the aid of the Greek, Latin, German, English, &c. Its founder, John Avenarius, professor at Wittenberg, has had but few followers; but among these we may reckon the eccentric Hermann van der Hardt, who attempted to derive the Hebrew from the Greek, which he regarded as the most ancient of all tongues. 4. The Hieroglyphic, or Cabbalistic system, long

1. The Rabbinical. This school, which is properly indigenous among the Jews, derives its ac-in vogue among the Jews, but first introduced into quaintance with the Hebrew from the tradition of Christendom by Caspar Newman, professor at the synagogue; from the Chaldee Targums; from Breslau. It consists in attaching certain mystical the Talmud; from the Arabic, which was the lan- and hieroglyphical powers to the different letters guage of some of the most learned rabbins; and of the Hebrew alphabet, and determining the sigfrom conjectural interpretation. In this school, at nification of the words according to the position one of its earlier periods, Jerome acquired his occupied by each letter. This ridiculously absurd knowledge of the language; and on the revival of hypothesis was ably refuted by the learned Christ. learning, our first Christian Hebraists in the west Bened. Michaëlis, in a Dissertation printed at were also educated in it, having had none but rab- Halle, 1709, in 4to, and has scarcely had any bins for their teachers. In consequence of this, abettors: but recently it has been revived by a the Jewish system of interpretation was intro- French academician, whose work on the subject duced into the Christian church by Reuchlin, Se- exhibits a perfect anomaly in modern literature. bastian Munster, Sanctes Pagninus, and the elder Its title is, 'La Langue Hebraique Restituée, et la Buxtorf; and its principles still continue to exert veritable sens des mots Hebreux retabli et prouvé a powerful and extensive influence through the par leur analyse radicale. Par Fabre D'Olivet a medium of the grammatical and lexicographical Paris, 1815,' 4to. According to this author, & is works of the last mentioned author, and the tinge the sign of power and stability; of paternity and which they gave to many parts of the biblical virility; a of organic or material development; translations executed immediately after the Re- of divisible or divided nature; a most mysterious formation. sign, expressive of the connexion between being and nonentity, &c. The following specimens of M. D'Olivet's own English version, taken at random from the second volume, will fill our readers with astonishment at the perversion they display, no less of the powers of the human mind, than of the true principles of language, and of the Scriptures of truth.

2. The Forsterian school, founded about the middle of the sixteenth century by John Forster, a scholar of Reuchlin's, and professor in Tubingen and Wittenberg. This author entirely rejected the authority of the rabbins; and, not being aware of

* Parean's Principles of Interpretation, P. I. sect. 1. ch. 1; Pfannkuche's Essay on the Language of Palestine in the Age of Christ. Biblical Cabinet, vols. ii., vii.

“Gen. ii. 8. And-he-appointed, IHOHA, HEthe-Gods, an-inclosure (an organical boundary) in

the-temporal-and-sensible-sphere extracted-from- | mological import, or, as it has been expressed, in the-boundless-and-foregoing (time), and-he-laid- every sense of which they are capable. Its author, up there that-same-Adam whom-he-had-framed- John Cocceius, a learned Dutch divine, regarded forever. every thing in the Old Testament as typical of

"10. And-a-flowing-effluence(an emanation) was- Christ, or of his church and her enemies; and the running from-this-temporal-and-sensible-place, for-lengths to which he carried his views on this subbedewing that-same-organic-enclosure; and-thence ject considerably influenced the interpretations it-was-dividing in-order-to-be-henceforth-suitable given in his Hebrew Lexicon, which is, nevertheto-the-four-fold-generative power.

"22. And-he-restored (in its former state) IHOHA, He-the Being-of-beings, the-self-sameness-of-the-sheltering-windings which-he-had-broken from Adam (the collective man) for (shaping) 7. The Schultensian school, by which, to a cerAishah (the intellectual woman, man's faculty of tain extent, a new epoch was formed in Hebrew volition), and-he brought-her-to-Adam. philology. Albert Schultens, professor of the ori

“vi. 9. Those-are the symbolical progenies of-ental languages at Leyden, was enabled by his proNoah; Noah, intellectual-principle, right-proving- found knowledge of Arabic, to throw light on of-universal-accomplishments was-he, in-the-pe- many obscure passages of Scripture, especially on riods-his own together with-him-the-Gods, he- the Book of Job; but, carrying his theory so far applied-himself to walk, Noah.

the whole, according to sober and well-matured | respecting the meaning of certain words and phrases, principles of interpretation.

(2) The first of these means, is the study of the language itself, as contained in the books of the Old Testament. Though by some carried to an unwarrantable length, it cannot admit of a doubt, that this must ever form the grand basis of scriptare interpretation. Difficulties may be encountered at the commencement; but when, as we proceed, we find from the subject matter, from the design of the speaker or writer, and from other adjuncts, that the sense we have been taught to affix to the words must be the true one, we feel ourselves possessed of a key, which, as far as it goes, we may safely and confidently apply to unlock the sacred writings. When, however, the signification of a word cannot be determined by the simple study of the original Hebrew, recourse must then be had to the ancient versions, the authors of most of which, living near the time when the language was spoken in its purity, and being necessarily familiar with oriental scenes and customs, must be regarded as having furnished us with the most important and valuable of all the subsidiary means, by which to ascertain the sense in cases of äñaž λeyóμeva; words or phrases of rare occurrence, or connexions which throw no light on the meaning. Yet, in the use of these versions, care must be taken not to employ them exclusively, nor merely to consult one or two of them to the neglect of the rest. It must also be ascertained, that their text is critically correct, in so far as the passage to be consulted is concerned; and the biblical student must not be satisfied with simply guessing at their meaning, or supposing that they either confirm or desert what he may have been led to regard as the sense of the original; but must be practically acquainted with the established usage obtaining in each version, and the particular character of their different renderings.

(3) The Rabbinical Lexicons and Commentaries furnish the next source of Hebrew interpretation. Not that this source is to be admitted as a principium cognoscendi, or an infallible criterion, by which to judge of the true signification of Hebrew words; but, considering that the rabbins of the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries, whose works alone are here taken into account, possessed a knowledge of the Arabic as their vernacular language, or in which, at least, they were well versed; that they were familiar with the traditional interpretation of the synagogue, as contained in the Talmud and other ancient Jewish writings, or transmitted through the medium of oral communication; and, that they were mostly men of great learning, who rose superior to the trammels of tradition, and did not scruple to give their own views

in opposition to the voice of antiquity; it must be conceded, that no small degree of philological aid may reasonably be expected from their writings.

(4) The last means consists in a proper use of the cognate dialects. These are the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Samaritan, Phoenician, and the Talmudical Hebrew. All these dialects possess, to a great extent, in common with the Hebrew, the same radical words, the same derivatives, the same mode of derivation, the same forms, the same grammatical structure, the same phrases, or modes of expression, and the same, or nearly the same, signification of words. They chiefly differ in regard to accentuation, the use of the vowels, the transmutation of consonants of the same class, the extent of signification in which certain words are used, and the peculiar appropriation of certain words, significations, and modes of speech, which are exhibited in one dialect to the exclusion of the rest.*

(5) These languages, when judiciously applied to the illustration of the Hebrew Scriptures, are useful in many ways. They confirm the precise signification of words, both radicals and derivatives, already ascertained or adopted from other sources. They discover many roots and primitives, the derivatives only of which occur in the Hebrew Bible. They are of eminent service in helping to a knowledge of such words as occur but once, or at least, but seldom in the sacred writings, and they throw much light on the meaning of phrases, or idiomatical combinations of words-such combinations being natural to them all, as branches of the same stock, or, to some of them in common, in consequence of certain more remote affinities.

(6) It is to the superiority which the school of Halle has attained, in the combined application of these different means to the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, that we are indebted for the flood of light which has been poured upon its pages.

SECTION II.

CRITICISM OF THE HEBREW TEXT.

Purity of the Sacred Text-Criticism of the Hebrew Bible-
Labours of the Jewish Literati to preserve the integrity of
the Original Text-Early printed Editions of the Hebrew
Bible-Influence of the Samaritan Pentateuch on the Hebrew
Text-Critical Editions of Athias, Jablonski, Van der Hooght,
Michaelis, Houbigant, Kennicott, and De Rossi-Uses of an
Acquaintance with the Literary History of the Original Text
-Celebrated Exemplars of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I. One of the first and highest objects of criticism is to ascertain and determine the purity or

* Congregational Magazine, Jan, 1828.

|

integrity of the text. Next to the genuineness wise destroyed. A book of the law, wanting but and authenticity of the Scriptures, the purity of one letter, with one letter too much, or with an the text is obviously of the utmost importance. error in one single letter, written with any thing It will be plain to every mind, that the biblical but ink, or written on parchment made of the books may have been originally written by divinely hide of an unclean animal, or on parchment not inspired persons; but that, during the lapse of purposely prepared for that use, or prepared by ages, and by passing through various hands, they any but an Israelite, or on skins of parchment may have been so greatly corrupted as to have tied together by unclean strings, shall be holden had their original character destroyed, and to have to be corrupt: that no word shall be written, been rendered wholly unworthy of reception, as a without a line first drawn on the parchment; no revelation of the divine will and purpose. This word written by heart, or without having been topic, then, claims our first attention; and we first pronounced orally by the writer: that before shall therefore proceed to show the evidences we he writes the name of God, he shall wash his possess for establishing the identity of the text pen; that no letter shall be joined to another; now extant with that delivered to the church by and that, if the blank parchment cannot be seen the inspired prophets, evangelists, and apostles. all around each letter, the roll shall be corrupt. There are settled rules for the length and breadth of each sheet, and for the space to be left between each letter, each word, and each section. These Maimonides mentions, as some of the principal rules to be observed in copying the sacred rolls. Even to this day, it is an obligation on the persons who copy the sacred writings to observe them; and those who have not seen the rolls used in the synagogues, can have no conception of the exquisite beauty, correctness, and equality of the writing.

1. With regard to the Hebrew Scriptures, comprising the books of the Old Testament, it must in candour be admitted, that our knowledge of the formation of the present text is very imperfect and unsatisfactory. Dr. Kennicott contends that almost all the existing manuscripts were written between the years 1000 and 1460;* whence it has been reasonably inferred, that the older manuscripts were destroyed, after having been used by the Jewish literati, in revising the common text.

2. We know nothing of the method by which the revisors proceeded in the prosecution of their task, nor of the precise amount of those errors in the older copies that induced them to undertake its revision. But let it not be inferred from this admission, that the sacred text may therefore have been subjected to unauthorized alterations, or wilful corruptions. Did we possess no means of detecting such corruptions, if introduced (but which we do possess in abundance, in the ancient versions, quotations, &c.), the profound and almost superstitious veneration which even the most irreligious and immoral Jews are known to cherish for every tittle of their Scriptures, and the labour they have expended in preserving its purity, would alone assure us of the fact, that in their critical duties they were influenced by the most scrupulous integrity. Upon this subject it may be interesting as well as satisfactory, to show the excess of care the Masorites bestowed in making their copies, with a view to the preservation of the integrity of the text. In transcribing the sacred writings, it has been a constant rule with them, that whatever is considered as corrupt, shall never be used, but shall be burnt, or other

*M. de Rossi has divided Hebrew MSS. into three classes, viz., (1) More ancient, or those written before the twelfth century; (2) Ancient, or those written in the thirteenth and fourteenth century; (3) More recent, or those written at the end of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century.

3. But the attention of the Jews was not confined to the penmanship of the Holy Word; they also made incredible exertions to preserve the genuineness and integrity of the text. This produced what is termed the Masora, which has been justly pronounced to be the most stupendous monument in the whole history of literature, of minute and persevering labour. The persons who were employed in it, and who afterwards received from it the name of Masorites, were some Jewish literati, who flourished after the commencement of the Christian era. With a reverential, not to say superstitious, attention, of which history does not furnish an instance to be urged in comparison with it, they counted all the verses, words, and letters of all the twenty-four books of the Old Testament, and of each of those twenty-four books, and of every section of each book, and of all the subdivisions of each section. They distinguished the verses where they thought there was something forgotten; the words which they believed to be changed; the letters which they thought superfluous; the repetitions of the same verses ; the different reading of the words which are redundant or defective; the number of times that the same word is found in the beginning, middle, or end of a verse; the different significations of the same word; the agreement or conjunction of one word with another; the number of words that are printed above; which letters are pronounced. and which are turned upside down; and such as