INTRODUCTION TO THE CRITICAL STUDY AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. ON THE CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. PART I. ON SCRIPTURE-CRITICISM. CHAPTER I. ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF SCRIPTURE. SECTION I. ON THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.. I. Antiquity of the Hebrew Language; - - II. And of its characters. III. Of the Vowel Points. A KNOWLEDGE of the original languages of Seripture is of the utmost importance, and indeed absolutely necessary, to him who is desirous of ascertaining the genuine meaning of the Sacred Volume. Happily, the means for acquiring these languages are now so numerous and easy of access, that the student, who wishes to derive his knowledge of the Oracles of God from pure sources, can be at no loss for guides to direct him in this delightful pursuit. 1 I. The HEBREW LANGUAGE, in which the Old Testament is written, with the exception of a few words and passages that are in the Chaldæan dialect 1, is by some critics supposed to have derived its name from Heber, one of the descendants of Shem (Gen. x. 21. 25. xi. 14. 16, 17.): though other learned men are of opinion Besides some Chaldee words occasionally inserted in the historical and prophetical books, after the Israelites became acquainted with the Babylonians, the following passages of the Old Testament are written in the Chaldee dialect, viz. Jer. x. 11. Dan. ii. 4. to the end of chap. vii. and Ezra iv. 8. to vi. 19. and vii. 12. to 17. that it is derived from the root (ABER), to pass over, whence Abraham was denominated the Hebrew (Gen. xiv. 13.), having passed over the river Euphrates to come into the land of Canaan. This last opinion appears to be best founded, from the general fact that the most antient names of nations were appellative. The Hebrew language has been conjectured by some philologists to have been that, in which Jehovah spoke to Adam in Paradise, and that the latter transmitted it to his posterity. Without adopting this hypothesis, which rests only on bare probabilities, we may observe that the Hebrew is the most antient of all the languages in the world; at least we know of none that is older. Although we have no certain proof that it was the unvaried language of our first parents, yet it is not improbable that it was the general language of men at the dispersion; and, however it might have subsequently been altered and improved, it appears to be the original of all the languages, or rather dialects, which have since arisen in the world. 1 2 Various circumstances combine to prove that Hebrew is the . original language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of which it is composed are very short, and admit of very little flexion, as may be seen on reference to any Hebrew grammar or lexicon. The names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental circumstances, &c. The names of brutes express their nature and properties more significantly and more accurately than any other known language in the world. The names also of various antient nations are of Hebrew origin, being derived from the sons or grandsons of Shem, Ham, and Japhet; as the Assyrians from Ashur; the Elamites from Elam; the Aramæans from Aram; the Lydians from Lud; the Cimbrians or Cimmerians from Gomer; the Medians from Madai, the son of Japhet; the Ionians from Javan, &c. Further, the names given to the heathen deities suggest an additional proof of the antiquity and originality of the Hebrew language; thus, Japetus is derived from Japhet; Saturn from the Hebrew word in (saTaN), to be concealed, as the Latins derive Latium from latere, to lie hidden; because Saturn was reported to have been concealed in that country from the arms of Jupiter 3, or Jove, as he is also called, which name is by many deduced from JEHOVAH; Vulcan from Tubal-Cain, who first discovered the use of iron and brass, &c. Lastly, the traces of Hebrew which are to be found in very many other languages, and which have been noticed by several learned men, afford another argument in favour of its antiquity and priority. These vestiges are particularly conspicuous in the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Phoenician, and other languages spoken by the people who dwelt nearest to Babylon, where the first division of languages took place." 4 Dr. Gr. Sharpe's Dissertations on the 4 Walton, Prol. iii. § 7, 8. (pp. 76, 77.) Origin of Languages, &c. pp. 22. et seq. The knowledge of the Hebrew language was diffused very widely by the Phoenician merchants, who had factories and colonies on almost every coast of Europe and Asia; that it was identically the same as was spoken in Canaan, or Phoenicia, is evident from its being used by the inhabitants of that country from the time of Abraham to that of Joshua, who gave to places mentioned in the Old Testament, appellations which are pure Hebrew; such are, Kiriath-sepher, or the city of books, and Kiriath-sannah, or the city of learning, (Josh. xv. 15. 49.) Another proof of the identity of the two languages arises from the circumstance of the Hebrews conversing with the Canaanites without an interpreter; as the spies sent by Joshua with Rahab (Josh ii.); the ambassadors sent by the Gibeonites to Joshua (Josh. ix. 3-25.), &c. But a still stronger proof of the identity of the two languages is to be found in the fragments of the Punic tongue which occur in the writings of antient authors. That the Carthaginians (Pœni) derived their name, origin, and language from the Phoenicians, is a well-known and authenticated fact; and that the latter sprang from the Canaanites might easily be shewn from the situation of their country, as well as from their manners, customs, and ordinances. Not to cite the testimonies of profane authors on this point, which have been accumulated by Bishop Walton, we have sufficient evidence to prove that they were considered as the same people, in the fact of the Phoenicians and Canaanites being used promiscuously to denote the inhabitants of the same country. Compare Exod. vi. 15. with Gen. xlvi. 10. and Exod. xvi. 33. with Josh. v. 12. in which passages, for the Hebrew words translated Canaanitish and land of Canaan, the Septuagint reads Phoenician and the country of Phoenicia. The period from the age of Moses to that of David has been considered the golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several foreign words, particularly Aramæan, from the commercial and political intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and Babylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the Babylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not inaptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years' captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they had resided, that afterwards, on their return from exile, they spoke a dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account, it was, that, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret them to the people in the Chaldæan language; as when Ezra the scribe brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law, because "they read in the book, in the law of God, dis tinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Neh. viii. 8.). Some time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be spoken altogether: though it continued to be cultivated and studied, by the priests and levites, as a learned language, that they might be enabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it appears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general contents and tenor; this lastmentioned period has been called the leaden age of the language. 2 3 II. The present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and of a square form: but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has been most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in Eusebius's Chronicle 3, and another in Jerome, it was inferred by Joseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church, transcribed the antient characters of the Hebrews into the square letters of the Chaldæans: and that this was done for the use of those Jews, who being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than that of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the old character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This opinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as from rabbinnical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such characters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of this point is to be found in the antient Hebrew coins, which were struck before the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten tribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same with the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their forms, occasioned by the depredations of time. These coins, whether shekels or half shekels, have all of them, on one side, the golden manna-pot (mentioned in Exod. xvi. 32, 33.), and on its mouth, or over the top of it, most of them have a Samaritan Aleph, some an Aleph and Schin, or other letters, with this inscription, The Shekel of Israel, in Samaritan characters. On the opposite side is to be seen Aaron's rod with almonds, and in the same letters this inscription, Jerusalem the holy. Other coins are extant with somewhat different inscriptions, but the same characters are engraven on them all. 5 It is worthy of remark that the above practice exists at the present time, among the Karaite Jews, at Sympheropol, in Crim Tartary; where the Tartar translation is read together with the Hebrew Text. (See Dr. Pinkerton's Letter, in the Appendix to the Thirteenth Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society, p.76.) A similar practice obtains among the Syrian Christians at Travancore, in the East Indies, where the Syriac is the learned language and the language of the church; while the Malayalim or Malabar is the vernacular language of the country. The Christian priests read the Scriptures from manuscript copies in the former, and expound them in the latter to the people. Owen's History of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. ii. p.364. 2 Walton, prol. iii. § 15—24. (pp. 84-97.) Schleusner's Lexicon, voce, 'Eßpaïs. Jahn, Introd. ad Vet. Fœdus, pp. 94-96. Parkhurst (Gr. Lex. voce, 'Eẞpaïs) has endeavoured to shew, but unsuccessfully, that no change from Hebrew to Chaldee ever took place. 3 Sub anno 4740. 4 Præf. in 1 Reg. 5 Walton, Prol. iii. § 29–37. (pp. 103-125.). Carpzov, Critica Sacra, pp. 225–241. Bauer, Critica Sacra, pp. 111-127. But the latest and most useful work on Hebrew The opinion originally produced by Scaliger, and thus decisively corroborated by coins, has been adopted by Casaubon, Vossius, Grotius, Bishop Walton, Louis Cappel, Dr. Prideaux, and other eminent biblical critics and philologers, and is now generally received: it was, however, very strenuously though unsuccessfully opposed by the younger Buxtorf, who endeavoured to prove, by a variety of passages from rabinnical writers, that both the square and the Samaritan characters were antiently used; the present square character being that in which the tables of the law, and the copy deposited in the ark, were written; and the other characters being used in the copies of the law which were used for private and common use, and in civil affairs in general; and that after the captivity, Ezra enjoined the former to be used by the Jews on all occasions, leaving the latter to the Samaritans and apostates. Independently, however, of the strong evidence against Buxtorf's hypothesis, which is afforded by the ancient Hebrew coins, when we consider the implacable enmity that subsisted between the Jews and Samaritans, is it likely that the one copied from the other, or that the former preferred, to the beautiful letters used by their ancestors, the rude and inelegant characters of their most detested rivals? And when the vast difference between the Chaldee (or square) and the Samaritan letters, with respect to convenience and beauty, is calmly considered, it must be acknowledged that they never could have been used at the same time. After all, it is of no great moment which of these, or whether either of them, were the original characters, since it does not appear that any change of the words has arisen from the manner of writing them, because the Samaritan and Hebrew Pentateuchs almost always agree, notwithstanding the lapse of so many ages. It is most probable that the form of these characters has varied at different periods: this appears from the direct testimony of Montfaucon, and is implied in Dr. Kennicott's making the characters, in which manuscripts are written, one test of their age.2 III. But however interesting these inquiries may be in a philological point of view, it is of far greater importance to be satisfied concerning the much litigated, and yet undecided, question respecting the antiquity of the Hebrew points; because, unless the student has determined for himself, after a mature investigation, he cannot with confidence apply to the study of this sacred language. Three opinions have been offered by learned men on this subject. By some, the origin of the Hebrew vowel points is maintained to be co characters, according to Bishop Marsh, is "Josephi Dobrowsky de Antiquis Hebræorum Characteribus Dissertatio." Pragæ, 1783, 8vo. "This tract," he says, "contains in a short compass a perspicuous statement of all the arguments, both for and against the antiquity of the Hebrew letters; and the conclusion which the author deduces is, that not the Hebrew, but that the Samaritan, was the antient alphabet of the Jews." (Divinity Lectures, part ii. p.135.) A tract was also published on this subject by A. B. Spitzner, at Leipsic, in 1791, 8vo. entitled “ Vindiciæ originis et auctoritatis divinæ punctorum vocalium et accentuum in libris sacris Veteris Testamenti." In this piece the author strenuously advocates the divine origin and authority of the Vowel Points. Hexapla Origenis, tom.i. pp. 22. et seq. 2 Dissertation on, the Hebrew Text, vol.i. pp. 310-314. |