dangerous by-paths, that it would have been much better not to leave the beaten road. In this century however JOHN ERNEST GERHARD, (1647,) ANDR. SENNERT, (1658,) HOTTINGER, (1649 and 1659,) SCHINDLER, (1653,) CASTELL, (in his Lexicon Heptaglotton (1669,) JOHN F. NICOLAI, (1670,) John WM. HILLINGER (1670,) JOHN LE CLERC, and Pocock, did indeed recommend the cognate dialects, and Louis de Dieu (1642,) in his Animadversiones in Libros V. F., the ancient versions, as means of illustrating the Hebrew. But very little benefit resulted, until in the beginning of the 18th century, ALBERT SCHULTENS, who was prepared for the undertaking by the most extensive erudition, showed, with immense labour, in his Origines Hebraica, in opposition to DRIESSEN, that it was only through the cognate dialects that a certain knowledge of the Hebrew language could be drawn. When however Schultens and his followers ran to extremes in seeking assistance from etymology, and neglected the Aramæan dialects and the ancient versions, JOHN DAVID MICHAELIS, in his Beurtheilung der Mittel welche man anwendet die Hebraische Sprache zu verstehen, 1754, marked out with greater care the principles of the interpretation of the Old Testament. Comp. MEYERS Gesch. der Schrifter. klär. III. 58—77,[a]

(a) See Germ. Introd. p. 254, 255. Tr.]

§ 73. Knowledge of the Hebrew Language which may be depended on.

Since, as has been shown, direct testimony respecting the usage of the Hebrew language, (that is, such as arises from the Hebrews themselves of the age when their language was living,) cannot be attained, it becomes necessary to resort to indirect. This is afforded by the cognate dialects, which in fact are at bottom the same as the Hebrew language, so that the signification of words and the sense of phrases and sentences which we find in them, should be admitted also in the Hebrew, particularly if these are supported by the connexion of the discourse, the subject, and the scope of the author. That the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic or Abyssinian, Samaritan, Phoenician and Talmudic dialects are the same language as the Hebrew, any one who is acquainted with them will discover; for in all there are the same

roots, the same derivations, the same method of formation, the same forms of words, the same significations, the same grammatical inflec. tions with but little variation, and the same phrases. Those who are unacquainted with them may be taught the fact by the history itself, (Comp. Gen. x. 16-30. xii. 1, ss. xxix. 3 ss. xxxvii. 27, 28. Ex. iv. 18. Jud. vii. 13-15.,) which shows that Aramaans, Arabs and Hebrews conversed with each other freely without an interpreter. And if it appears from II Kings xviii. 26. Isa. xxxvi. 11. that the common people of the Jews did not understand the Aramæan dialect, still the nobles who were better versed in the Hebrew understood it ; and certainly without having learned it, for in that age the acquisition of foreign languages was confined to merchants. The Ethiopic or Abyssinian dialect is the Arabic, which the Cushites brought with them into Africa across the straits of Babelmandel, and slightly altered. The Samaritan, which consists of a mixture of the Hebrew and Aramæan, cannot be radically different from either. The Talmudic is the Hebrew itself a little altered, and increased by the addition of foreign and more modern words and phrases.

§ 74. Diversity in the Dialects.

That the dialects differ in some respects is what the nature of the case might lead us to anticipate. But this discrepancy does not alter the nature and substance of the language. 1) It affects the different position of the accented syllable, which in the Hebrew and Chaldee is usually the last, in the Syriac and Arabic the penult.-2) The different auxiliary or vocal sounds, as for example, p (to be near,) in Aramæan. And in general when the Hebrew and Chaldee have the i, the Syriac usually employs an e, and where e occurs in the Hebrew, the Syriac frequently has i. For the Hebrew cholem the Chaldee has kametz; and its forms in Segol are in the Aramæan and Chaldee generally words of one syllable; as Heb. 1, Aram. 27, Arab. 27.3) The change of some princi

in Hebrew and Arabic,

-:

קרב

pal sounds or consonants, such especially as are of the same organ of speech. Thus for the Hebrew Sin the Arabic generally has Shin, and the contrary; and when the Hebrew Shin is altered in Aramæan

to Thau, the Arabic has The, as Heb. p, Aram. pn, Arab. pr ;

- T

and when for the Heb. Zain the Aramæan uses Daleth, the Arabic has Deal, as Heb. n, Aram. Ñɔ¬, Arab. ñ. The Hebrew Tzade

is changed in Aramæan into Tet, for which in Arabic there is usually a Da, as in Heb. ', Aram. , Arab. 20.- -4) The form of

T:

the words is often somewhat different while the signification is the same; as in the flexion of verbs and nouns, in the vowel changes of nouns with suffixes, in the plural number, and in the construct state, and also in the forms of nouns; and sometimes a letter is omitted or added. 5) The signification of words is often in one dialect more limited, and in another more comprehensive; in one specific, in another general.-6) Many words, significations, and modes of speech, are in one dialect very current, while in another they are used but seldom.-7) In different dialects slight changes only of signification take place; as for instance, some verbs which in Hebrew are intransitive, are in the other dialects transitive.- -8) The most remarkable variety is caused by the provincialisms, that is to say, the words, significations, and phrases, which are peculiar to any dialect. Since the Hebrew provincialisms cannot be explained from the cognate dialects, and those of the cognate dialects cannot be applied to the explanation of the Hebrew, the interpreter must consequently be on his guard; but as cases of this kind are not very frequent, this cannot weaken the testimony of the dialects in ascertaining the Hebrew usage. Care must be taken not to introduce into the Hebrew, through a slight similarity of words, ideas, and phrases, what properly belongs to one or another of the dialects. Nevertheless even Hebrew provincialisms often receive light from the cognate dialects.

§ 75.

The dialects not changed in their general character. The cognate dialects are indeed derived from books somewhat modern, which were written many ages after the Hebrew had become a dead language. Still there is no reason to apprehend that they have been greatly changed, so as to present to us a very different appearance from what they formerly exhibited. For these dia

lects, as well as the Hebrew, were highly cultivated in very early ages; and languages which have arrived at such a state of perfection, by this very perfection of theirs become fixed, so that they are not subjected to mutations, unless of an unimportant nature, and such as do not affect their internal character. This is especially the case with eastern languages. In order to illustrate what has been said, 1) the Punic in the Pænulus of Plautus may be given as an example, which, notwithstanding the injury which it has sustained from ignorant transcribers, manifestly corresponds with Hebrew. 2) The Hebrew of Nehemiah, Malachi, Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah, agrees, in the main with the language of Moses, who was more than 1000 years anterior to them. 3) The Syriac dialect of the second century in the Peshito version is the same as is read in Abulfaragius or Bar Hebræus, a writer of the thirteenth. 4) Lastly, the Arabic dialect in poems more ancient than Mohammed contains the same words, and forms of words, the same inflexions, significations, and phrases as are found in the more modern books, and also in Arabic manuscripts of our own age. Comp. my Arabic Chrestomathy.

§ 76. The large number of significations presents no difficulty. Those who are apprehensive lest the multitude of significations which are collected from all the cognate dialects rather distract than assist the interpreter, do not seem to understand the subject; since the preceding and subsequent contexts, the subject itself, and other circumstances, indicate with sufficient accuracy the meaning in any particular place. If this indication is occasionally somewhat obscure, the same is often the case in Greek and Latin books; and as in those the tenor of discourse, the subject, the scope of the author, and other circumstances, are the more carefully weighed in order to unfold the true signification of a word, or sense of a passage; so the same method must be pursued, in similar cases, with the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. If in some instances even this should not be sufficient to dispel the darkness, we must remember that a similar result is not unfrequently experienced with relation to ancient works in Greek and Latin. But in proportion as the connexion, the design, the scope, and other circumstances of the discourse, are accurately compared, will the number of obscurities diminish.

§ 77. Twofold advantage of the use of the Dialects.

The benefit which arises from the study of the dialects is twofold. There is first the advantage, in itself considerable and of frequent occurrence, of elucidating difficult words, phrases, and passages, not indeed with absolute certainty in all cases, but in many only with probability. Secondly, there is the certainty which results as to the signification of all the other Hebrew words, and as to the meaning of the whole sacred text; so that the sense may be positively known, and a reason given for it. For without a knowledge of the dialects, we should be obliged implicitly to trust the old translations and Rabbinical works, and it would be impossible to distinguish between what is true and what is false, what is certain and what is doubtful. This advantage is far superior to the former. It is not discernible in commentaries and scholia, but in the more improved lexicons, in which almost all that is certain respecting the signification of Hebrew words is found to be confirmed by the testimony of the dialects; and the significations of those words only, which are destitute of aid from this source, are left in obscurity and doubt.

§ 78. Proper comparison of the Dialects.

In order to derive these advantages from the cognate dialects, several circumstances must be attended to.-1) They must all be compared. For a word, or the true signification of a word in the place under examination, may exist in the very dialect which is omitted in the comparison. Thus, to watch, to look out from a watchtower, and 278, to love, are employed in these significations only in the Samaritan; and it is only in the Ethiopic that has the meaning of bottle and a musical instrument, as it has also in Hebrew. Too much must not be expected from one dialect, as the followers of Schultens have done in relation to the Arabic, the Jews to the Chaldee, Ludolph to the Ethiopic. Nor should a particular preference be given to any one. It may be of use, however, to observe, that the Aramæan dialect is most frequently employed in the later books.2) It is necessary to avoid all artificial accommodation of words and meanings in the dialects to the Hebrew. The simplest comparison is