iimmmiiiuuiiitMM.i'ttiimuii 
 
 liiniltiltiSiililnliHiiitUlllii i 
 
 iiijitiiii iniiii;i 
 
 iiiiiniiHiiiiiiiiiiiiliniyiiiiliiliiiii 
 
r. T B R ^ R Y 
 
 iF IIIK 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Case ^5 I 17^ Division ,., 
 
 ■^■MfM\33 Sect,o„ ; 
 
 Bool: c .-- . , 
 
 ^ •' i ' No... ^, 
 
NOTICE TO SUBSOJilBEiiS 
 
 The Publishers have now the pleasure of issuing the 
 last Volume for 1852. 
 
 They respectfully request an early remittance for 
 1853. 
 
 The first two Volumes will be — 
 
 Gieseler's Compendum of Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory, vol. 3, with Indices to previous volumes ; 
 and 
 
 MuLLER on the ChristIxVN Doctrine of Sin, vol. 
 2, completing that work. 
 
 May they request the favour of their Subscribers 
 giving the series their recommendation, as they have 
 opportunity. 
 
CLARK^S 
 
 FOREIGN 
 
 theoloctIcal library. 
 
 VOLUME XXVIII. 
 
 iS?^eintcft'tt fitttroDuction to tfje #15 2re»tament. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET ; 
 
 LONDON : SEELEY AND CO. ; WAUD AND CO. ; AND JACKSON AND WALFORD. 
 
 DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON. 
 MDCCCLII. 
 
GENERAL HISTORICO-CRITICAL 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 BY H. A, CHrHAVERNICK, 
 
 LATE TKACHEK OFTUKOLOGY IN lUE UNIVEKSITY OF KONIQSBERO. 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM LINDSAY ALEXANDER, D.D. 
 
 EDINBURGH : 
 T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 
 
 LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. ; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO. ; 
 
 SEELEY AND CO. ; WARD AND CO. ; JACKSON AND WALFORD, ETC. 
 
 DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON. 
 
 MDCCCLII. 
 
PRINTED BY 
 PAKK AND DEWARS, 
 
 DUNDEE. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 The work of wbicli a translation is now presented to the British 
 Public was the mature production of a theologian distinguished by 
 that vast and varied learning which may be regarded as peculiarly 
 characteristic of the modern German divines, and at the same time 
 imbued with that reverence for the Bible as the Word of God, and 
 that lively apprehension of its spiritual truths, which unhappily are 
 too often found wanting in that quarter. " I have undertaken," he 
 says in his preface, " to write this work from that stand-point 
 which, through God's grace, has been showed tome — from the inward 
 and firm conviction that the object of investigation is God's holy 
 word, given to mankind sunk in sin and misery, for the purpose of 
 guiding them in the way of salvation and peace. Whosoever has, 
 through the mercy of the Lord, been led so as to have learned to 
 understand at his hand the word of life, and through this has been 
 not only enlightened, but sanctified and blessed, cannot but feel 
 constrained to utter, according to the calling, and in the measure 
 vouchsafed to him by the Lord, a testimony for the grace which 
 has been displayed even unto him. As it is written, ' I believe 
 therefore I speak,' so the theologian, the servant of the Church of 
 Jesus Christ, knows that it is impossible to construct a theological 
 science which is not founded on the truth — more particularly on 
 the truth as revealed in the Word ; and his desire and most zealous 
 endeavour, in keeping with this, is to erect on this basis a living 
 edifice of science, the corner-stone of which shall be that besides 
 which no other can be laid by any man. Such an one knows also 
 that he thus labours not in the service of man, and on a vain and 
 profitless work, but in the service of the Head of the Church, who 
 has placed him as a steward of the mysteries of God, that he may 
 be found faithful in the day of the appearing of Jesus Christ. " 
 
VIll TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 
 
 Addressing himself to his task in this pious spirit, and bringing 
 to it the resources of a mind trained in theological disciphne, and 
 full to overflowing with biblical learning, the author has produced 
 a work which it is confidently believed all competent judges in this 
 country, will hail with satisfaction. It is not, indeed, free from 
 defects. The Translator feels himself at liberty to acknowledge 
 that on several points Dr Havernick has failed to carry conviction 
 to his mind — that his conclusions are not always such as his 
 premises seem to justify, at least to the full extent — that not 
 unfrequently he has fallen under the charge of obscurity and 
 vagueness both of thouglit and expression — that sometimes his 
 ponderous learning rather encumbers than aids his reasonings — 
 and that now and then he has misapprehended either the point of 
 an opponent's argument, or has tried to turn it aside by what is 
 irrelevant. But after every deduction is made that can be justly 
 made on the score of such deficiencies, the work, he is persuaded, 
 will commend itself to literate theologians as one of the most 
 valuable contributions which Germany has furnished to Biblical 
 criticism and Isagogie. 
 
 As respects his own department, the Translator has only to say 
 that he has endeavoured to convey as clearly as he could the 
 meaning of his author in a close rendering of his words. He does 
 not share in the judgment of those who are disposed to demand 
 from the Translator of such a work an entire avoidance of any 
 foreign colouring in his version ; for this he considers, after some 
 considerable experience in such matters, as altogether impossible if 
 a faithful transcript of the original is to be placed before the reader. 
 In translating a work of science, the great object must be to 
 preserve not merely the substance of the author's opinions and 
 reasonings, but as much as may be also of the form in which these 
 are conveyed. Where this is not done, and where for the sake of 
 elegance the Translator renders his author only ad sensum, there is 
 no small danger of the reader being presented, not with what the 
 original writer really utters, but with the explanation which the 
 Translator thinks should be put upon his author's statements. Now, 
 this is to go beyond the province of the Translator, and to intrude into 
 that of the Commentator. Hence, to avoid this has been a guiding 
 principle of the author of this translation, and accordingly he has 
 thought it better sometimes to sacrifice rigid purity of idiom and 
 
TRANSLATORS PREFACE. ]X 
 
 phraseology for the higher end of bringing his author's own modes 
 of tlioLight and expression more immediately before the mind of 
 the reader. At the same time he must frankly acknowledge, that to 
 do even this he has not unfrequently found to be a task of no small 
 difficulty. Havernick is by no means a perspicuous or careful 
 writer; his sentences are often involved and cumbrous, and his 
 language peculiar, sometimes oddly figurative, sometimes almost 
 affectedly philosophical. In a few cases his meaning has, after 
 every effort to catch it, only glimmered doubtfully on the Translator, 
 and in one or two instances the latter has been compelled to render 
 simply verhum pro verbo, without at all distinctly understanding 
 what the words so collocated have been intended to mean. He has 
 the less reluctance to make such a confession from observing, that 
 even to Havernick's own countrymen the obscurity of his writing 
 formed subject of complaint. " He," says the editor of his 
 posthumous work on the Theology of the Old Testament, Dr H. 
 Aug. Hahn — " He who is acquainted with the books of the now 
 sainted Havernick knows how his style labours under a certain 
 awkwardness and unwieldiness, which detracts very often from the 
 easy understanding of the connection." Where Germans them- 
 selves find difficulty in a German writing, it may be pardoned in a 
 foreigner that he has sometimes perhaps erred in his attempts to 
 render that writing into another language, and sometimes has had 
 to relinquish the effort to catch the exact meaning as hopeless. 
 
 The parts of this volume to which the Translator is disposed to 
 attach the principal value are the second and third chapters. He 
 is not aware of any treatise to which the mere English reader 
 has access in which the subjects of the original languages of the 
 Old Testament and the History of the Text are so copiously and 
 learnedly treated. He has only to add, that for the translation of 
 § 41 — § 44 he is indebted to one friend, and for that of § 08 — § 90 
 to another, whose aid he had to request, that the printing of the 
 work might not be interrupted through certain pressing duties of 
 another kind to which he was obliged to attend. Having, however, 
 carefully revised every part, he holds himself responsible for the 
 whole. 
 
 PixKiE BuKN, 23cl November, 1852. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 I'age 
 
 1. Relation of introduction to theology in general, . I 
 
 2. Place of introduction in relation to other departments of 
 
 inquiry, ..... 2 
 
 3. Scientific principle of introduction, ... 4 
 
 4. Division of Old Testament Introduction, . . 5 
 
 5. History of Old Testament Introduction. — Literature, . 6 
 
 1. Patristic Literature, .... 6 
 
 2. Time of reformation and of orthodoxy, . . 9 
 
 3. Conflict of orthodoxy with heterodoxy, . 10 
 
 4. Period of the Neologian criticism, . . 12 
 History of the Canon, .... 17 
 
 6. Origin and first formation of a collection of the Old Tes- 
 
 tament Books, . . . . .17 
 
 7. Circumstances conducive to the closing of the Canon, , 22 
 
 8. Time of the closing of the Canon, ... . 26 
 
 9. By whom was the Canon collected ? . . .36 
 
 10. Motives for the reception of any Book into the Canon, 45 
 
 11. Division of the Canon into three classes of Books, . 47 
 
 12. Refutation of certain erroneous views, . . 59 
 
 13. History of the Canon among the Jews of Palestine and 
 
 those of Alexandria, .... 61 
 
 14. Testimony of the New Testament respecting the Old Tes- 
 
 tament Canon, . ... 68 
 
 15. History of the Old Testament Canon in the Christian 
 
 Church, ..... 72 
 
 16. Catholic and Protestant Canon, . . • 77 
 History of the original languages of the Old Testament, 81 
 
 17. Object defined, ..... 81 
 
 18. Oriental languages, ..... 82 
 
 19. Aramaic language, ..... 83 
 
 20. Continuation. Language of Babylon, . . 88 
 
 21. Continuation, Aramaic dialect in tiie north of Palestine, 94 
 
 22. New Aramaic dialect. The Syriac as an ecclesiastical 
 
 langUi'ige, ..... 9!) 
 
 23. The dialect of the South. — The Arabic language, . 106 
 
 24. The Coran and Muhanimedan litprature, . , 114 
 
^1' TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 § 25. Hebrew language — its names and designations, . 124 
 
 26. Antiquity of the Hebrew languitre, . . 128 
 
 27. General characteristics of the Hebrew as a written lan- 
 
 guage, ..... 136 
 
 28. Continuation. Adojjtion of foreign words into the Heb- 
 
 rew, ...... 145 
 
 29. Poetical and Prosaic style, .... 149 
 
 30. Dialects of the Hebrew language, . . .152 
 
 31. DiiFerent periods in the Hebrew language till the time of 
 
 the captivity. ..... 155 
 
 A. — Mosaic age, , . . . .155 
 
 32. B. — Post-Mi)saic period. — Age of David and Solomon, 171 
 
 33. C. — The old Prophetic literature, . . . 187 
 
 34. Second age of the Hebrew language and literature. — Tiie 
 
 period of the captivity, . . . 196 
 
 35. Cessation of the Hebrew as a popular language, . 209 
 
 36. Tradition-period of the Hebrew language till it was 
 
 treated grammatically in the tenth century, . 212 
 
 37. Philological study of the Hebrew languuge among the 
 
 Jews, . . , . , .214 
 
 38. Philological study of the Hebrew among Christian schol- 
 
 ars. — First period, sixteenth century, . . 218 
 
 39. Continuation. Seventeenth century, . . 220 
 
 40. Conclusion. — Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, . 222 
 History of the Text of the Old Testament, . . 225 
 
 41. General view, ..... 225 
 
 42. General Prefatory remarks on the art of writing, . 225 
 
 43. Antiquity of letter- writing among the Semitic nations, . 227 
 
 44. Art of writing among the Hebrews. Its antiquity, . 231 
 
 45. Ancieut writing materials, .... 240 
 
 46. More extensive graphic development of alphabetic writing 
 
 in general, ..... 244 
 
 47. Development of the Hebrew writing, . . . 246 
 
 48. Continuation. Transition of the Old-Hebrew writing 
 
 into the square-writing, .... 249 
 
 49. Further history of the square writing. Different views 
 
 as to its rise, ..... 252 
 
 50. The square writing on monuments, . . . 254 
 
 51. Appendages to writing. Vowels. Period of the living 
 
 language, , . . . . ■ 256 
 
 52. Voi-alisation of the LXX. and of Origen, . . 257 
 
 53. Jerome and the Talmud, .... 259 
 
 54. The vowel signs of the Masoretes, . . . 262 
 
 55. Further history of vocalisation. Diverse views of this 
 
 subject, ...... 266 
 
 56. Separation of words, ..... 269 
 
 57. Separations according to the meaning. Verses, . 270 
 
 58. Other larger divisions, .... 273 
 
 59. History of the text of the Old Testament as a whole. 
 
 First period — to the closing of the Canon, . 275 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 § 60. 
 
 61. 
 62. 
 63. 
 64. 
 65. 
 G6. 
 67. 
 
 68. 
 
 69. 
 
 70. 
 
 71. 
 
 72. 
 73. 
 
 74. 
 
 75. 
 76. 
 
 77. 
 78. 
 
 79. 
 
 80. 
 
 81. 
 
 82. 
 83. 
 
 84. 
 85. 
 86. 
 
 87. 
 
 88. 
 89. 
 90. 
 
 91. 
 92. 
 93. 
 94. 
 95. 
 
 96. 
 
 Second period. History of the text till the age of the 
 Talmudists, 
 
 Treatment of the text among the Talmudists, 
 
 The Masoretes and their labours, 
 
 Manuscripts, .... 
 
 Continuation. Synagogue rolls, 
 
 Continuation. Private manuscripts, 
 
 Collections of various readings, 
 
 Printed text of the Old Testament. Principal editions, 
 
 History of the interpretation of the Old Testraent, — I. Of 
 the ancient versions. — 1. Greek versions, 
 
 Alexandrine translation. — Xature of it considered gene- 
 rally, ..... 
 
 Principles on which this peculiarity is to be explained, 
 
 How the Alexandrian translation originated. Oldest 
 history thereof. 
 
 Continuation. Further history of the Alexandrine trans 
 lation, ..... 
 
 The rise of new Greek translations, 
 
 The Hexapla of Origen, 
 
 History of the LXX. after Origen, 
 
 Daughter-versions of the LXX. — (1.) The Itala, 
 
 (2.)— Syriac version from the Greek, 
 
 (3.) — Other versions derived from the LXX., 
 The Versio Veneta, 
 2. Oriental versions, 
 
 Targumim. Their origin, 
 
 The Targums of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, and of Jona 
 than on the Prophets, 
 
 Targum Jeruschalmi on the Pentateuch and the Prophets, 
 
 The Targums on the Hagiographa, 
 
 The Syriac Peschito, 
 
 Versions derived from the Peschito, 
 
 Arabic translations, 
 
 Persian translation of the Pentateuch, 
 
 3. Latin translation, ... 
 
 The Vulgate. Earliest history of this translation. 
 
 Further history of the Vulgate, 
 
 Versions derived from the Vulgate, 
 
 Translations of the Pentateuch, according to the Sama- 
 ritan recension, .... 
 
 n. History of the exegetical treatment of the Old Testa- 
 ment in the general, ... 
 
 Preliminary remarks, .... 
 
 Ancient Judaism, . . . ■ 
 
 Exegesis of the Fathers, 
 
 Interpretations of the Rabbins, 
 
 Modern exegesis, .... 
 
 Principles of texual criticism of the Old Testament, 
 
 Idea of this, ..... 
 
 P.'ise 
 
 277 
 279 
 282 
 286 
 287 
 288 
 291 
 292 
 
 295 
 
 295 
 
 297 
 
 300 
 
 303 
 306 
 309 
 313 
 316 
 318 
 323 
 326 
 328 
 328 
 
 331 
 336 
 338 
 341 
 348 
 349 
 350 
 351 
 351 
 354 
 358 
 
 358 
 
 360 
 360 
 361 
 364 
 369 
 371 
 375 
 375 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 § 97. Critical process in reference to the historical witnesses, 
 
 98. Criticism as respects its objects, 
 
 99. Estimate of certain other critical systems, 
 Principles of Old Testament hermeneutics, 
 
 100. Preliminary, ..... 
 
 101. Philological understanding of the Old Testament, 
 
 102. Historical Understanding of the Old Testament, 
 
 103. The Theological Understanding of the Old Testament, 
 
 104. Refutation of some other Modes of Interpretation in their 
 
 application to the Old Testament, 
 
 Page. 
 
 376 
 378 
 380 
 383 
 383 
 384 
 385 
 386 
 
 387 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 HAVIiRXTOK'S INTRODUCnON TO THE PKNl'ATEUCH. 
 
 § 1. Division of the OM Testament Books, 
 
 2. On the Historical BL,oks of the Old Testament in general, 
 
 3. Appellation and Division of the Pentateuch, 
 
 i. The Author of the Pentateuch calls himself Moses, 
 
 5. Examination of the pretended opposing facts, 
 
 6. Unity of the Pentateuch. Positive evidence of it, 
 
 7. Original Documents and Fragments in the Pentateuch 
 
 Historical view of the Hypotheses respecting these, 
 
 8. General Examination of the Fragment-Hypothesis, 
 
 9. General Examination of the Document-Hypothesis. Its 
 
 Foundation : The Nasnes of the Deity, 
 
 10. Examination in detail of the Arguments for the Divisl 
 
 bility of the Pentateuch into Separate Documents, 
 (a) Genesis, .... 
 
 11. The result with regard to the Sources of Genesis, 
 
 12. Continuation, (b) Exodus, 
 
 13. (c) Leviiicus, 
 
 14. (d) Numbers and Deuteronomy, 
 
 15. Internal Truth of the Pentateuch. Criticism of the 
 
 History in it. The Primitive History, Gen. i. — iii., 
 
 16. Continuation. Gen. iv. — ix., 
 
 17. Critical Review of the Table of Nations, Gen. x., 
 
 18. The History of the Patriarchs, Gen, xi. — xvi., 
 
 19. Continuation. Gen. xvii. — xxv., 
 
 20. Continuation, Gen. xxvi. — xxxviii., 
 
 21. Continuation. The History of Joseph, Gen. xxxvii. — 
 
 xxxix. — xlvii., .... 
 
 22. Continuation. Gen. xlviii. — 1., 
 
 23. Criticism of the History in Exodus, chaps, i. — xix., 
 
 24. The giving of the Law at Sinai. General Remarks, 
 
 25. Continuation. Of the Decalogue, &c. Exodus xx.— : 
 •V 26. Historical Criticibra of Leviticus, 
 
 Page 
 
 1 
 1 
 13 
 14 
 19 
 23 
 
 45 
 
 48 
 
 56 
 
 62 
 62 
 
 77 
 82 
 86 
 88 
 
 90 
 103 
 118 
 131 
 156 
 189 
 
 205 
 226 
 235 
 265 
 280 
 293 
 
XVI 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 27. Continuation, Criticism of Numbers, i. — xx., 
 
 28. Continuation. Numbers xxi. — xxxvi., . 
 
 29. Criticism of Deuteronomy, . . 
 
 30. Concluding Remarks on the Historical Credibility and 
 
 Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch, 
 
 31. The Pentateuch considered as a Literary and Religious 
 
 Document of its age, 
 
 32. History of the Pentateuch. Testimonies to its existence 
 
 First Ages :. from Moses to Solomon, 
 
 33. Continuation. The Books of Samuel, 
 
 34. Continuation. The Age of Solomon according to the 
 
 Book of Kings, .... 
 
 35. Testimonies to the Pentateuch from the period subsequent 
 
 to Solomon, .... 
 
 36. Concluding Remarks regarding the Historical Books, 
 
 37. Testimonies to the Genuineness of the Pentateuch in the 
 
 Prophets, .... 
 
 38. Testimonies to the Genuineness of the Pentateuch from 
 
 the other writings of the Old Testament, 
 
 39. The Samaritan Pentateuch, 
 
 40. The Testimony of the New Testament to the Genuineness 
 
 of the Pentateuch, 
 
 41. History of the Attacks made upon the Genuineness of the 
 
 Pentateuch, .... 
 
 42. General Concluding Remarks, 
 
 Page 
 
 306 
 319 
 337 
 
 355 
 
 363 
 
 367 
 376 
 
 390 
 
 395 
 413 
 
 416 
 
 428 
 431 
 
 438 
 
 440 
 445 
 
GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 § 1. RELATION OF INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY IN GENERAL. 
 
 Historical Theolofjy is occupied with llie development of the 
 kingdom of God as an object of science — the rise and progress of 
 that remedial institution, in which God's grace to fallen man is re- 
 vealed and realized. Hence, materially, historical theology has to 
 do with the kingdom of God in a twofold respect : 1 , as it assumes 
 the character of a Theocracy,^ i.e. a divine state under the imme- 
 diate direction of God, the living and invisible King ; and, 2, as it 
 assumes the character of the ^aatkeia tov ©eov, the community of 
 behevers formed through Christ, the body compacted together with 
 him as the head, and regulated by the Holy Ghost. Formalhi, 
 historical theology, as concerned with the investigation of historical 
 truth, has also a twofold aspect : 1. It treats of the facts (or doc- 
 trines viewed as facts) as set forth and unfolded in certain docu- 
 ments, and thus becomes sometimes the special detailed analysis of 
 these {exegetical theology), sometimes the scientific presentation of 
 events, — history in the stricter sense (and this again in virtue of 
 the principle of material division above stated falls into History of 
 the Theocracy and Church History), and sometimes the unfolding 
 of the Dogmata, the truths to be believed, of these documents 
 {biblical theology and history of opinions, of which the former is 
 the introduction to the latter) ;'^ 2. It takes up the records of the 
 historical truth itself, viewing them as the documents of this, and 
 investigating in a historico-critical manner their nature and quality. 
 
 1 According to Josephus, Cont. Apiou. ii. W, deoKpaTiav dirti-irf.v (Moses) to 
 TToXiTEUjua, 6fO) ixaWov fxov CO Ttfv dp)(J]i/ Kai to KpaTOt ivu^iin. 
 - Baumgarteu Crusius. BiM. Theol. p. 3. 
 A 
 
2 GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 In this respect historical theology, when occupied with the records 
 of Scripture, is called Introduction to the Old and New 
 Testaments. 
 
 § 2. PLACE OF introduction IN RELATION TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS 
 
 OF INQUIRY. 
 
 With Introduction more than one department of Ecclesiastico- 
 Historical Science corresponds in consequence of the variety of 
 documents thereto belonging ; especially Patristic which has to do 
 with the ancient muniments of the Church and their authors, and 
 what used to be called Symholic Theology, or historico- literary 
 introduction to Church confessions, &c. In Church History the im- 
 portance of specially treating such a department of inquiry has 
 been less felt than in regard to the biblical documents, in conse- 
 quence of the dogmatical interest of the latter. It is not simply 
 us historical witnesses, relating exclusively to a certain time and 
 place, that these are to be regarded, but as the highest norm of 
 man's faith and life, originated supernaturally by God the Holy 
 Ghost, containing divine revelations, — in short, as the Word or 
 God. 
 
 In the same way may another analogous department of investi- 
 gation, viz.. Literary History, or the scientific development of what 
 has been accomplished in knowledge and learning by one or more 
 nations, be discriminated from Biblical Introduction. The history 
 of profane literature has in common with that of sacred literature 
 only so much as belongs to the human authorship and style of 
 the latter. But this is subordinated to the divine verity, and is but 
 the organ whereby this is, amid many and varied circumstances 
 and peculiarities, expressed in its own peculiar manner.^ These two 
 are not to be arbitrarily separated in scientific research, any more 
 than in the concrete they are disunited ; the maxim (rightly un- 
 derstood) iravra dela Koi iravra avOpMiriva finds here also its appli- 
 cation. As consequently Literary History has to do not merely with 
 the writers as individuals, but also with all the circumstances fa- 
 
 1 Ste the excellent remarks of Steudel in the Tiibinger tlieol. Zeits. 1832. Hft. 3, p. 
 03. If. 
 
GKNF.RAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 3 
 
 vourable or unfavourable which influenced them, and called out 
 their mental activity ; so in Introduction a new element still has to 
 be introduced, viz., the divine agency manifested both in each in- 
 dividual case, and in the collective whole. That such there is. 
 Introduction assumes from Dogmatic,^ and thus far the latter is the 
 basis of the former. Introduction is a historical elucidation, not 
 simply of the human and outward origin and characteristics of 
 the sacred records, but also of that which makes them sacred books, 
 the operation of the Spirit who indited tliem, and of the Providence 
 which has watched over their preservation. 
 
 Far from regarding this relation of Introduction to doctrinal 
 theology as having a contracting influence upon our science by re- 
 ducing it as it were to a dishonoured and servile condition, we 
 feel constrained rather to uphold it as the only right and possible 
 mode of investigation. To repudiate the consideration of the 
 biblical records under a religious aspect (which appears in our day 
 to be held forth as the beau ideal in this departments^) would be to 
 announce an irreligious treatment of them, and thus in professing to 
 be impartial to embrace a party. This plan would be one-sided, 
 and therefore fallacious, for it would forcibly separate what are 
 closely united, and treat the Bible as " a mere historical pheno- 
 menon on the same footing with other similar phenomena ;"* 
 whereas its divine character as a revelation is part of the historical 
 phenomenon it presents. This theory also relinquishes entirely 
 the theological claims of Introduction, and reduces it to a medley 
 of grammatico-historical enquiries, whose higher common reference 
 to theology is ignored. 
 
 But Introduction must necessarily be historical. Without cer- 
 tain and fixed principles, however, lying at its basis, History is not 
 a science ; it is not from a lauded, but practically unattainable 
 impartiality, that historical enquiries have their value, but only 
 from such a conviction as is true, tenable, and suited for affording 
 a basis on which they may rest. But Introduction must also be 
 
 1 Hence au iuquiry into the Theopneusty of the Scriptures belongs not to Introd., 
 into which it is dragged by Bauer (Einl. p. 45, ff.), Jahn, and others. 
 
 2 On this grotmd we must decline the unme I-iterary History of the Old and New 
 Testament, which Hupfield (Stud. und. Krit. 1830, s. 247) has anew proposed, because 
 it is, to say the least, calculated to lead to misapprehension. 
 
 3 See for instance De Wette's Einleit. ins A. T., § -1. 
 
 4 De Wette, \oc. cil. 
 
 A ^ 
 
4 GENERAL PUEFATOKY KEMAUKS. 
 
 critical. To separate the true from the false, the genuiue from 
 the spurious, the pure from the corrupt, is impossible without a 
 test, without those sound principles which prejudice hinders and 
 arbitrariness destroys.^ In both respects, consequently, it is Dog- 
 matic, the true dogmatical conviction which, in the highest in- 
 stance, comes forward as the arbitress, and as the inspiring prin- 
 ciple creates in our science a true and higher life. 
 
 § B. SCIENTIFIC PEINCIPLE OF INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Some in recent times have not seldom represented Introduction 
 as a mere aggregate of certain pieces of knowledge, " possessing no 
 true scientific principles, and no necessary bond of connection. "2 
 In this case it certainly would be wiser to dispense with it alto- 
 gether, and to consider its different parts under the head of other 
 branches, where each would find its due place. There is, however, 
 a scientific character belonging to this branch of enquiry as truly 
 8s to the history of ancient profane literature. 
 
 It would be impossible, indeed, for this latter to estabhsh this 
 claim by a mere enumeration of different authors and their works 
 in chronological order. Such an exploit would as little deserve to 
 be called literary history, as mere annals merit to be viewed as the 
 history of a nation. It is only when the hterary history of a peo- 
 ple is scientifically handled, when its general character, on the one 
 hand, and its special features, according to the separate branches 
 of literary investigation, on the other, are considered, that it can 
 be regarded as entitled to the honour of science. But that such a 
 representation may appear historically true and self-consistent, it 
 must not proceed from the author's peculiar notions, or from any 
 modern theories, but must assume as its standard the inner nature 
 of the writings, and the ground-principles of Antiquity itself. It 
 must find in itself the scientific principle and its development,^ 
 
 In the same way Biblical Introduction must be scientifically 
 constructed out of its own proper materials. The documents to be 
 
 1 Comp. Kleinert iib. die Aecbth. des Jesaias i. p. 38, if. 
 
 2 De Wette, lib. cit. § 1. 
 
 3 Comp. Passow's Essay iib. die neiiesten Bearbeitung der Griecli. Liter. Gescb. in 
 Jabn'8 Jahib. fiir Philologio. 1828, b. i. p. 141, ff. 
 
GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. / 5 
 
 treated of in it are, as respects their general and historical charac- 
 ter, holy books treated as such ; the Israelites (to confine our- 
 selves to the Old Testament) had only a holy literature, and such 
 alone is the object of our historico-critical enquiry. As such also 
 it has in point of fact proved itself; for not without reason is it so 
 regarded, inasmuch as it has manifested itself to all who have 
 viewed it in faith as a regenerating and heaven-descended Word.^ 
 In short, as the records of salvation announce themselves as canoni- 
 cal, and as such were always regarded and used, the whole of this 
 literature finds a common centre in the idea of the Canon (more 
 strictly the Scripture-canon) ; whereby it transcends all other 
 literature, and is distinguished from it by a value peculiarly its 
 own. From this fundamental character of Scripture, which is not 
 something foreign to it, but something belonging to its peculiar 
 nature, the importance of treating it as a connected whole having 
 reference to its proper end is apparent, and this fixes for us the 
 starting-point of our undertaking. 
 
 § 4. DIVISION OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION. 
 
 If we set out from the assumption of the canonicity of the Old 
 Testament writings, it follows that these are the purely special 
 object of our investigation, and that the apocryphal and pseudo- 
 epigraphic literature, as it is called, can be connected with this only 
 as an appendix to it. The writings composing this are worthy 
 of notice, not on the ground of their being uncauonical literature 
 of the Hebrews, but in so far only as they are imitations of the 
 canonical books, and in this respect are to be regarded partly as the 
 fruit which has sprung immediately from these and been nurtured by 
 them, and partly as an unworthy picture, a caricature of them. 
 The idea of the Canon conducts us to General Introduction 
 as our first main division, and to Special Introduction as our se- 
 cond. It is best to take the former first, and the latter second,^ as 
 in this way the principle of the whole is easily unfolded, and a 
 scientific treatment of tlie subject can be better observed. In 
 
 1 Calvin, Tnstitt. lib. i. c. 7. 
 
 2 Not the opposite, as reopiitly Schott has done, in his lRnp;oge in Nov. Testflment. 
 
6 GENERAL PKEFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 this way the view of the whole is gained which is chiefly of import- 
 ance. 
 
 General Introduction, accordingly, may be best studied in 
 the following order : 1. The origin, determination, division, &c., 
 of the whole collection (Doctrine of the Canon) ; 2. External form 
 of the Canon, the language in which it is written (Doctrine of the 
 original languages, Linguistic Introduction) ; 3. The preservation 
 of this entire body of documents, and the state in which it now 
 exists (History of the Text) ; 4. How has the Canon been under- 
 stood and interpreted ? This question requires a twofold answer, 
 leading to the division into the History of Translations and that of 
 Exegesis, both of which are embraced in the general conception of 
 how the Canon has been treated ; 5. The Theory framed out of ex- 
 perience in this department, and gathered from historical investiga- 
 tion, as respects, in the first place, the constitution of the text (Cri- 
 ticism) ; and, 6, the same as respects the explanation of the Canon 
 (Hermeneutics). 
 
 § 5. HISTORY 01' OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION. — LITERATURE. 
 1. PATRISTIC LITERATURE. 
 
 In the early ages of Christianity, the minds of the Fathers were 
 much more bent on the fixing and founding of doctrines, and con- 
 sequently on the contents of Holy Scripture, than on its historical 
 basis and origin — questions for the proper treatment of which they 
 were, indeed, deficient in historical science. On this subject, 
 therefore, we must rest contented with what the Fathers have done 
 in the way of apology under the stimulus supplied by tlie attacks of 
 the Heathen (such as Celsus and Porphyry), or by the aberrations of 
 the heretics (Manichees, Gnostics). These attacks, however, re- 
 spected only, so far as the Canon was concerned, certain doctrines, 
 such as, e. gr. the relation of the Law to the Gospel, and a few 
 historical particulars, as the judgment of Celsus on Genesis,^ of 
 Porphyry on Daniel, which, though they called forth the energies 
 
 1 Oil Ma)U(7£'(os oiETai I'lvai tiji/ ypatpiiv dWn ti.vuw irXitovwv. Orig. ront. Cels. 
 T. 42. Thp proofs were principally of a flogmatical cliaracter, viz. the myths in Genesis. 
 See some valuable remarks in Von Cblln's Lehrbuch d Dogmengeschichte i. 117, ff. 
 
GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 7 
 
 of the Apologists, yet always were repelled in a way which placed 
 the question more on dogmatical than on historical grounds. 
 
 For the first work of a more important and comprehensive cha- 
 racter in this respect we are indebted to the most distinguished 
 theologian of the Western Church, Augustine (De Doctrina Chris- 
 tiana, libb. iv. 0pp. ed. Benedict, vol. iv.). He designates the con- 
 tents of his work as " praecepta tractandarum scripturarum," so 
 that they are to be regarded as in a sense a system of Herraeneu- 
 tics. Admirable, and even in the present day useful, for this de- 
 partment of Introduction is his development of the characteristics 
 of a true interpretation of Scripture (lib. i. and ii.) ; the work is 
 interesting, besides, in consequence of the strictures it contains on 
 Monkery and the tendency to a false asceticism (Prol. § 4 — 8) on 
 the Donatists, especially Tichonius Afer (lib. iii. 30, if.),^ and their 
 perverse handling of Scripture on their own false principles, as 
 e. gr. the high value of the LXX. This work has been frequently 
 edited apart (by Calixtus, Helmst. 1655. Teegius, Lips. 1769), 
 and has had its influence, especially at the time of the Reforma- 
 tion ; see Luther's writings. Manuals have even been compiled 
 after it as a model ; witness the Compendium Doctrinee Christiante 
 ex Augustini libris, Ed. Th. Bibliander, Basil, 1550, and the 
 Institutio hermen. ex Aug. libris de Doct. Christ. Conquisita a 
 Breithaupt, Kilon. 1 605." Much inferior, both as to substance and 
 extent, is the little tractate of Augustine's learned contemporary, 
 •Jerome, entitled Libellus de optimo interpretandi genere (directed 
 principally against Rufinus), ep. 101 ad Pammachitim. 
 
 Still less can we reckon upon the work of Adrian, apparently a 
 later, but as to his age doubtful. Father of the Church, entitled '£k7- 
 d'ya'yi] eh ra<i ^eta? ypacfid'i, as it belongs rather to the depart- 
 ment of grammar and rhetoric. It begins with a comparison of 
 the i8id!)/u,aTa rov 'JS^paiKov ')(apaKTripo<^, which tlie author divides 
 
 1- Tliis person had sliortly before Augustine written, " regulae septeni iul investigan- 
 dam et inveniendam iutelligeutiam sacrarum scripturarum" (Gallaudi Bib. JVia'x. Patr, 
 t. vi. p. 49, sqq.),"au odd mixture of slight sketches of a sort of topical theolog)', and 
 poor formal rules of composition," Nitzsch Sendscbr. an Delbriick s. 8-t, 
 
 2 Comp. Eosenmiiller Histor. Interp. 1. sacr. t. iii. p. 406, sq., and e.'ipecially Clausen 
 Augustinus Hipp. S. S. interpres. p. 136, sq. 
 
 3 'Ai/£yi^tt)<T6tj ' ASpiavov Eiaaywy?) rfjs yparpri^. Xpijo-i/tos toTs tiTayo/xf.i/oii h fttfi- 
 Ao9. Photius. He is also mentioned by Cassiodorus. Probably be is the same who is 
 named by Nilus, Epist. ii. 60, ed AUat., as a monk skilled in exegesis. 
 
8 
 
 GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 into IB. T?}? Siavoia'i (Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms 
 of Scripture) 18. tt}? Xe^eo)? (pecuhar expressions, such as \a\eiv 
 for a7ro<paive(rdai, ovpavol for ovpav6<;, &c.), and 18. t?}? avvde- 
 creco? (elHpses, metaphors, hyperboles, &c.)- After this follows a 
 brief survey of the etS?; tt)? ^e/a? ypa^rj'i, in which the historical 
 form is distinguished from the prophetical ; the prophetical utter- 
 ances are divided into Xoyoi, oTTTaalai, and epya (symbolical acts) ; 
 and the whole ends with some herraeueutical observations. The 
 first edition (now rare) of this work was that of Hoschel (Augustse 
 Vind. 1602, 4to); afterwards it was printed entire in the Critici 
 Sacri, Tom. vi. p. 10, sq. In the department of Hermeneutics we 
 have the first of the two books Instructionura ad Salonium filium 
 (Bibl. p. 839, sq.) issued by Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons, a work 
 which belongs to the fifth century. Of more importance is the 
 treatise of the African bishop Junilius in the sixth century, en- 
 titled, Libri ii. de partibus legis divinse (Bibl. Patt. max. xii., p. 
 77 sq. ; also published separately, Basil 1545, 8vo., Francof. ad 
 Oder. 1603, 8vo), dedicated to Priraasius, the illustrious disciple 
 of Augustin. There is in it an attempt at theory (he discriminates, 
 e. gr., dictio historica, prophetica proverbialis, simpliciter doceus) ; 
 there is perceptible, also, an effort to promote a more methodical 
 appi'ehension of Scripture, — these rules having been given by him 
 to his disciples, " ut ipsarum caussarum quae in divina lege ver 
 santur, intentionem et ordinem cognoscereut, ne sparsim et turbu- 
 lente sad /•(j^e/ZanV^'r singula discerent" {Proffat.) But the want 
 of independence and completeness characteristic of the author's 
 time appears from this, that by his own confession he attached himself 
 entirely to Paulus, a scion of the Syrian school at Nisibis, and is to 
 him especially indebted for his work (see von Lengerke de Ephraim. 
 Syr. arte hermeneutica), which makes us regret that no theoretical 
 works of the kind belonging to the East are now extant for us. 
 His views also of the Canon were erroneous ; and he passes, even 
 in the first book, into a sort of Biblical dogmatics, with which in 
 the second he is wholly occupied. 
 
 As the irruption of the barbarians into the Roman empire, along 
 with the ever-increasing number of monks and ascetics and the in- 
 ternal corruption of the Church, tended ever more and more to im- 
 pose a restraint on theology and to stifle an interest for science, it 
 was natural that the branch of theology now before us should find 
 
GENERAL PREFATORV REMARKS. 9 
 
 hardly any cultivators. All the more does it become us to ac- 
 knowledge the services in this department of Cassiodorus the Bene- 
 dictine (died about A.D. 5G2), who was the first to give a bias to 
 his order in the direction of science and learning.^ He wrote Libb. 
 ii. de Institutione divinarum Scriptui'arum.' Notwithstanding 
 many faults, as e. yr. in his views of the Canon, for which his depend- 
 ence on earlier authorities was chiefly to blame, his work has still 
 much value in a literary point of view. His catalogue of biblical 
 commentators, especially Latin, is important. He refers to the 
 helps for the understanding of Scripture, urges the use of litterarum 
 saecularium stadia, and gives valuable directions to the monks for 
 the copying of the codices of the Bible. During the middle ages 
 his work remained the only one of value for the science of Intro- 
 duction ; for, though others followed it (such as the Prolegomena 
 of Isidorus Hispalensis) they did not equal it ; least of all the 
 Prolegomena, compiled exclusively from what preceded them in the 
 scholastic theology. 
 
 § 2. TIME OF THE REFORMATION AND OF ORTHODOXY. 
 
 The time of the Keformation, like that of primitive Christianity, 
 was marked by a strong dogmaticalbias, before which even exegesis 
 succumbed, and this explains the otherwise singular fact that we 
 are indebted for the first work [in our deparment] at this time to a 
 Catholic. Francis Sixtusof Siena (Sixtus Sinensis) wrote aBiblio- 
 theca sacra ex praecipuis Cathol. ecclesiee auctoribus coUecta, in 
 which he chiefly treats of the authors of the sacred books, the 
 ancient translators, and interpreters. In respect to the last he is 
 especially copious and learned. He is more free from the preju- 
 dices of his church than the majority of those Cathohc theologians 
 who succeeded him (in his views, for instance, on the Canon, the 
 interpretations of the Fathers, (fee.)" 
 
 1 See concerning bim Staudlin in the Kirciienhist. Archiv. 1825, i 259 fF., and § 381 ff. 
 
 2 He himself describes them in the preface as Introdiictorii libri, and in fact they are 
 fuller than any which preceded tliem, and so approximate the nearest to the idea of an 
 Introduction. 
 
 3 The first edition appeared at Venice 1566, 2 vol. fob The latest, (Neapol. 1742), is 
 dedicated to Pope Benedict XIV., who was noted for his scientific freedom of thought. 
 The judgment upon the work by Simon, Hist. Crit.de. 1' A. T.lib. vii. p. 17, is interesting. 
 
10 GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 But the impulse given in the Protestant Church to the study of 
 Scripture had been too strong, and had already yielded too much 
 good fruit not to draw to the exegetico-historical branch of theology 
 the zeal of its theologians. Hence appeared Walton's admirable 
 Prolegomena to his edition of the Polyglott (London 1657 ) ; since 
 republished separately at Zurich 1723, and cum "prefationeDathii," 
 Leips. 1777 [and by Wrangham, '•' qui Datbianis et variorum Notis 
 suas immiscuit," 2 vols. 8vo., Cantab. 1828]), in which the ancient 
 versions and the linguistic department are discussed with especial 
 care. Somewhat earlier the first contribution to Introduction in 
 the Lutheran Church was made by Walther, whose Officina 
 Bibhca, 4to., was pubhshed at Leipzig in 1636, and soon became 
 the general manual. 
 
 Once entered on this field the Reformed Theologians cultivated it 
 with untiring assiduity. Even now the works of a Hottinger 
 (Thesaurus Philologicus sive Clavis S. S.), a Leusden (Philologus 
 Hebraeus), a Heidegger (Enchiridion Biblicum), &c., are, for their 
 genuine classical learning, their earnest spirit of inquiry, and their 
 effort after a complete method of study, much more valuable than 
 people often think. Certain portions of General Introduction, such 
 as the history of the Text, were by these theologians of the seven- 
 teenth century cultivated with the happiest results. i 
 
 § 3. CONFLICT OF ORTHODOXY WITH HETERODOXY. 
 
 Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the peaceful pro- 
 gress of our science on the basis of a common belief in revelation 
 was disturbed, and a polemical direction given to it through the 
 rise of unsound philosophical systems, and their influence upon 
 theology. The first examples of any importance were set by Hobbes 
 in his Leviathan (Amsterdam, 1670), and Spinoza in his Trac- 
 tatus Theologico-Politicus, a work which, as is well known, ap- 
 peared under various titles in order the better to conceal its 
 author and intent. Both of these books set out from anything but 
 a critico- scientific stand-point; they build on certain pre-assumed 
 
 i This has been well acknowledged recently by Hupfeld, wlio vigorously rebukes the 
 retrogressive movement of modern scholarship as compared with the onward tendency of 
 our Fathers. See Theolog. Studien und Kritiken 1830, s. 248, ff. 
 3 
 
GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 1 1 
 
 dogmatical opinions, and treat the subject entirely in relation to 
 them. Hobbes after, in the section " De civitate Christiana," cap. 
 32, fp., having laid down principles to the effect that " sensibus, 
 experientiae et {quod verhitm Dei induhitatum est) rectae ra- 
 tioni renuntiandum non est" proceeds in cap. 33 to treat "de nu- 
 mero, antiquitate, scopo, auctoritate et interpretatione libr. sacr." 
 The superficial discussion in this chapter is devoted principally to 
 cavils against the genuineness and antiquity of certain of the Old 
 Testament books. So also Spinoza, who was more proficient in 
 knowledge of languages, occupies himself, cap. I — 7, with purely 
 dogmatical questions of a preliminary kind (such as the denial of 
 inspiration), and then advances, in cap. 8 — 10, to a special criti- 
 cism of the Old Testament, which is devoted to the casting of sus- 
 picion on the books individually, and as a whole. On the same 
 dogmatical method, the English and French freethinkers proceed ; 
 only that their scepticism is of a more practical character, and they 
 use scoffing as their principal weapon. In a scientific point of 
 view they are not worthy of further notice. The way was thus 
 prepared for the appearance of Richard Simon's Histoire critique 
 de I'ancien Test (first ed. Paris 1678 ; in liatin, Amsterdam, 1681) 
 in which the Old Testament Introduction was treated as a separate 
 branch of inquiry, and in a manner which, scientifically consi- 
 dered, placed the subject on a much higher elevation than any of 
 the above-named books. This work was prohibited in France 
 (from reasons, in fact, very trifling), and Catholics as well as Pro- 
 testants wrote against it." With all its critical acumen and learn- 
 ing (though the latter has often been over-estimated and judged of 
 without sufficient regard to the claims of his predecessors), as well 
 as many clear glimpses on individual points, its hypotheses often 
 verging upon the bizarre, and its frequently indescribable insin- 
 cerity,3 are not to be forgotten. 
 
 If in the replies to Simon there was mucli that was weak, espe- 
 cially where, as in the case of the Sentimens de quelques theologiens 
 de HoUande sur I'histoire critique du V. T. comp. par Pi. S., 
 
 1 See their works in Baumgarten's Gesch. d. Relig. rartbeien, eililed by Semler, s.7a, 
 ff., and s. 199, ff. 
 
 2 See Roseumuller's Handbncb d. Liter, d. Bibl. Krit. und Exegese. Tb. i. s. IKj, ft'. 
 
 3 As when he accuses Spinoza of imperitia vel magis improhitas for bis cavils against 
 the Pentateuch, wliilst he himself adduces fundamentally the same opinion (Praef.). 
 
12 GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 Amst. 1685 (written by Le Clerc), this arose from an accordance 
 with his principles ; the Protestant Church had nevertheless strength 
 enough in it to combat these errors with the weapons of a believ- 
 ing theology. Of this the appearance of Carpzov's Introductio ad 
 libros canon. V. T. (Lips. 1721 ; 8d edit. 1741) is an excellent 
 evidence. From his preface it is manifest how fully he had com- 
 prehended what an Introduction should be in relation to his own 
 times especially. He proposes to treat chiefly of the following : 
 " ea quae circa asserendam Scripturae sacrae auctoritatem eamque 
 a ficaro^i/SXwv et Pseudo-criticorum strophis vindicandum, tum 
 circa librorum sacrorum appellationes varias, Scriptores, argu- 
 menta, scopum, chronologiam et partitionem tenenda Theologiae 
 consentanea essent." He accordingly devotes peculiar attention 
 to the subject of special Introduction, and in this respect he was 
 the first to determine fully and accurately the object of Introduc- 
 tion (Praef. ad p. 3). He handles admirably the polemical and 
 apologetical department (against Spinoza, Simon, &c.), and much' 
 is advanced by him long ago which an ungrateful posterity has in 
 its selfish zeal ignored. In many cases, however, this masterpiece 
 of Protestant science has been tacitly used ; but it was soon given 
 over to oblivion, from which it is high time at length that it 
 should be rescued.^ 
 
 § 4. PERIOD OF THE NEOLOGIAN CRITICISM. 
 
 Occupied chiefly with the historical department of theology, and 
 directing from this side his cavils against Christian truth, J. S. 
 Semler made also some attempts in the science of Old Testament 
 Introduction. He was called forth principally by E. Simon (Le- 
 bensbeschr. ii. s. 120), and contributed not a little to his becoming 
 known in Germany. In union with Oeder and the talented Swiss 
 Corrodi, he endeavoured most of all to undermine the old views of 
 
 1 Semler spoko disrespectfully of Carpzov (Lebensbescbr. ii. 138). De Wette places 
 liim under the head " Geist der Unkritik !' [spirit of uucriticality]. By the side of Cai-p- 
 zoy's work, especially iu respect of the points above specified, maybe placed Heidegger's 
 Exercitationes biblicae, the iirst vol. of which is devoted to tiie Old Testament; its 
 thorough solidity excited the liveliest hopes in regard to its promised successor, Pharos 
 Biblica, s. Introductio Generalisad Script, V. et N. 1'., but the author died before this 
 was prepared. 
 
GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS. 19 
 
 the canon and the canonicity of the separate books. These raen 
 gave criticism a purely negative and destructive tendency, with 
 the sufficiently clearly avowed design to overthrow the ancient 
 dogma of inspiration and supersede Scripture as the supreme 
 rule of Christian faith and life.^ In fact, however, Semler met 
 with vigorous and decided opposition. Out of such a fermen- 
 tation it could not be expected that a proper and complete In- 
 troduction should arise. The somewhat strange hypothesis must 
 already have made the necessity of a revision and reorganization 
 sensibly felt. At that time the enjoyment of the divine word was 
 in every way impeded by withered and sapless discourses. 
 
 To inspire a generation thus poverty-stricken and sunk in mate- 
 rialism with a desire for a more poetic treatment of the Old Testa- 
 ment was the end to which a Herder directed his whole powerful 
 eloquence. His energetic censures could not but (to use the words 
 of Goethe) " tear in pieces the curtains which concealed the poverty 
 of German literature," but it was only to call forth a new extreme. 
 " Taste" was the watchword of the new school. Proceeding from 
 it and characteristic of it is Eichhorn's Einleitung ins A. T. In 
 an aesthetical point of view the new system of treatment was un- 
 questionably more satisfactory, and the enthusiastic applause which 
 that work found attests how much this system was adapted to the 
 spirit of the time. Its effect, however, was to cause an entire ne- 
 glecting of Scripture as such. Biblical Introduction became a 
 branch of profane literary history. The " national literature of the 
 Hebrews" was the object of investigation ; the Christian and 
 genuinely theological interest was dismissed out of the science. 
 Thence arose also that inconsequent scientific treatment, the result of 
 subjective taste-judgments [Geschmacksurtheile] with which the 
 consistent rationalism of the present day can hardly be satisfied, 
 but in which the author up to his latest edition (the fourth, 1823- 
 2i), exhibited a marvellous constancy. On the whole, how- 
 ever, the subject underwent here earnest, tborough, and really scien- 
 tific investigation, particularly in comparison with the older theo- 
 logians. 
 
 1 The writings of Semler belonging to this department are his Apparatus ail liberal. 
 V. Ti. interpretationem, and his Abhand. von freier UDtersucliung des Knnon, 4 Theile. 
 
 2 Comp. the Analysis of the writings connected herewith in Walch's Neuester Eeli- 
 gionsgeschichte Th. vii. § 243, ft'. 
 
14 GENERAL PREFATORV REMARKS. 
 
 After Eichhorn had been reproduced and excerpted more or less 
 closely in several compendia (such as by Von Gute, Halle 1787, 
 8vo; Babor, Wien 1794 ; G. L. Bauer, Niirnberg 1794, 3d ed., 
 1806), there appeared Augusti's Grundriss einer historisch-kritis- 
 chenEinleitunginsA. T., Leipzig 1806, 2nd ed. 1827, with some 
 interesting notices, but far from complete, and composed under the 
 influence of the consequent Rationalism (of a Yater, De Wette, &c.) 
 In Bertholdt's Einleitung (6 parts; Erlangen 1812-19), the exist- 
 ing rationalist views are found collected in all their completeness ; 
 the composition is popular, often diffuse ; the arrangement of the 
 whole is very inconvenient and unsuitable ; the new ideas are few ; 
 and not unfrequently there is a want of critical acumen. De Wette 
 issued a compendium, of which the first edition appeared in 1817, 
 the fourth in 1833 [and the fifth in 1840.] It is recommended by 
 its exactness, and the dexterous selection of subjects handled, as 
 well as the excellent arrangement and distribution of the whole. 
 But it is well known that in it the rationalistic scepsis, hypercrisis, 
 and arbitrariness appear in their utmost extent. 
 
 In opposition to these attempts, which were executed in a spirit 
 of hostile opposition to the divine claims of Scripture, there ap- 
 peared persons who, in place of overturning, sought to build up, 
 and who laboured to vindicate the ancient authority of history against 
 the assaults of a one-sided negative criticism, and to defend in 
 accordance with science the much-assailed honour of holy Scripture. 
 In learning and depth, J. D. Michaelis was just the man to en- 
 counter Eichhorn on this field ; but he was inferior to the latter in 
 taste and culture, and he wanted a living penetrating sense of the 
 inner truths of Scripture. Moreover, no more than the first volume 
 of his Introduction appeared, discussing only Job and the Penta- 
 teuch (Hamb., 1784, in 4to.) Jahn's otherwise valuable work^ is 
 marred by accommodation, and too great a leaning to the prevail- 
 ing notions ; besides, it is partially under the domineering influ- 
 ence of the Cathohc Church doctrine. A higher place is in many 
 respects due to Pareau's Institutio interpretis. Vet. Ti., Traj. ad 
 Rhen., 1822., 8vo. [translated into English by Patrick Eorbes, 
 D.D., and forming vols. viii. and xxv. of the Bibhcal Cabinet. 
 
 1 Einleit. in d. gottl. Bucher des A. B., 2te Aufl. Wien, 1802. 2 Thle. Abridged in 
 Latin (Wieu, 1825, ed. 2). Conip. Ackermann Introduetio inlibr. V. Foed. Vienn.1826. 
 8vo. 
 
GENERAL PREFATOKY REMARKS. 15 
 
 Ediub. 1835 and 1840], which, though professedly a treatise on 
 Hermeneiitics, discusses many subjects which belong to Introduc- 
 tion. Rut the commencement of a new handling of our subject has 
 been especially made in the Beitriige z. Einleitung ins A- T., of 
 Dr Heugstenberg, first vol. Berlin, 1831 [2d Berl., 1836 ; 3d 
 Berl., 1839 — translated into Euglish by the Rev. B. P. Pratten and 
 J. E. Ryland, 3 vols.], in which a tendency,such as a criticism, pene- 
 trated by a truly Christian spirit, must take, shows itself in relation 
 to two of the books of Scripture, Daniel and Zechariah [to which 
 must now be added the Pentateuch], 
 
 The contributions of the English to this department are insig- 
 nificant. Home's Introduction to the critical study of the Holy 
 Scriptures, London [0th edit. 1816, four vols.], is rather a com- 
 pilation than an original scientific work.^ Still less important in 
 a scientific point of view is the Introduction a la lecture des livres 
 Saints, vol. i., Ancieu Testament of Cellerier, Geneve et Paris, 
 1832, 8vo (see my critique on it in the Melanges de Theologie 
 reformee. Geneve, 1833, ler cah. p. 91, seq.) 
 
 1 [In tlie absence of more copious works in Englisli, the treatise of Moses Stuart on 
 tLe Canon of tbe Old Testament deserves to be noticed. A new addition of it by Dr S. 
 Davidson, and anotber by tbe Rev. Mr Lorimer, Lave recently appeared. The valuable 
 Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, edited by Dr Kitto, 2 vols., 1. 8vo., Ediiib., 1845, 
 deserves also to be mentioned.] 
 
 1> 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 CHAPTER FIRST. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CANON.l 
 
 § 6. ORIGIN AND FIRST FORMATION OF A COLLECTION OF THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT BOOKS. 
 
 In remote antiquity the interests of religion and science were 
 closely associated, and hence the literature of the Oriental nations 
 was especially holy, — it was intimately connected with religion and 
 worship. The writers of sacred hooks were the priests, who also 
 presided over the domain of science, and whose duty it was to pre- 
 serve these books for their people, and carefully to watch over 
 them ; a relation which continued until it was materially filtered 
 by the introduction of new and foreign elements, and by a larger 
 culture, which set aside the simple order of Nature, and split the 
 life which formerly had been concentrated into one of manifold 
 variety. In the ancient priesthood of Egypt and Babylon, we find 
 sacred writers, the lepoypa/j.fA-aTel'i (who were also called vo'i]- 
 fjbove<i, 7rT€po<f)6poi.)^ In Greece, also, the ancient usage of the 
 East in this respect was retained ; for in its priestly class there 
 were 7/3a/i/AaTet? lepol (^lian, Hist. Anim. xi. 10) and iepo/xvij- 
 fiove<i (Aristot. Pol. vi. 8 ; Demosth. pro coron. c. 27 ; Hesychius 
 and Harpocrates sub. voc.)- E\'en in Rome the most ancient lite- 
 
 1 Cornp. the author's Histoire du Canon fie 1' Anc. Test, iu the Melanges de Theo. 
 logie, Ref. cah. 2. 
 
 2 See for Egypt Jablonsky, Pantheon Aegypt. Prolegg. p. 94, sq,, Creiizer Symbohk 
 Th. i. s. 245 ; for Babylon Havernick's Comment, iib. Daniel s. 5i, ff, 
 
 B 
 
18 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 rature was sacred, and the priests were the authors of the oldest 
 songs and annals.^ 
 
 In this way the temples or holy places become the depositories 
 of this literature ; in them we find the oldest archives of a nation. 
 The far-travelled Strabo calls the temples on this account expressly 
 TTivaKoOriKaL. When Sanchoniathon, the Phoenician priest, wrote 
 the history of his nation, he drew his materials chiefly from these 
 sacred archives (rSiv ev TOL<i lepoi<; avaypacpcov, Euseb. Praep. 
 Evang. i. 9.). In like manner the kings of Sparta, who united in 
 their own persons also the priestly honours and functions ( Aristot. 
 vol. iii. 9 ; K. 0. Mtiller's Dorier. ii. s. 90), preserved the prophe- 
 cies of the State. In Athens the p^^pT^cr/xol* and ScadijKai, (pacta) 
 aTropprjTOL, iv ol<; (Tayrripia tt}? TroXea)? Kelrai,^ were kept in the 
 Akropolis, in order that they might be secure against any falsifi- 
 cation. When Heraclitus had finished his philosophical work on 
 nature, he placed it in the sanctuary of Artemis at Ephesus, that 
 it might be kept from the eyes of the profane (Diog. Laert. ix. 6.). 
 In the same way the Komans preserved their Lihri fulgiwales in the 
 Temple of Apollo (Servius ad Virg. ^Eneid. vi. 72); the Lihri 
 lintei in that of Juno Moneta (Liv. iv. 8 ; ix. 18) ; and the Sibyl- 
 line books, the keeper of which was also a priest of Apollo, in the 
 Capitol (Onuphrius Panvin. de Sib. et carmin. Sib. p. 309 ; Nie- 
 buhr Rom. Gesch. i. 52G, ff.) 
 
 What we thus find to have been a general custom of antiquity 
 we should expect especially to have existed among the Hebrews, 
 whose Temple was the centre-point of the entire religious and spi- 
 ritual life of the people, and whose literature was exclusively sacred, 
 and designed for the service of God ; and that such was the case 
 the oldest historical documents of the people positively assert. 
 According to the Pentateuch these were committed into the hands 
 of the priests (Deuteron. xvii. 18; xxxi. 9); and from Deut. xxxi. 
 26 we still further learn that there was a side of the Ark of the 
 
 1 Hence these priests were also called by the Greeks lepofxvvfxovEi, comp. Niebuhf' 
 Rom. Gesch. i. s. 247, ff. 2te Ausg. Bahr, Gesch. d. Rom. Liter, s. 33, s. 250, ff. 
 
 2 Lib. xiv. p, 734 ed. Xyland. On the word see the commentators on Plin. Hist. 
 Nat. 35, 2, and Kreuser, Vorfragen iib. Homeros i. 312, ff. 
 
 3 Tas Sk /xavTijia^ tos yivo/xiva^ toutoi/s (puXaa'arEi.v. Herodot. vi. 57. 
 
 * See Herodot. v. 90 (de. c. 93) and Wesseling's note : Xpna-fxol in Atticae arci.i sacra- 
 rio recte componuntur cum Romanorum libris in cella Capitolii, gemellaarte excogitatis* 
 5 So Dinarchus Orat. cont. Demostb. 91. 20; comp. Lobeck Aglaophamus i. p. 9(55. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 19 
 
 Covenant in which they were placed. As far as our present ob- 
 ject is concerned, it is quite immaterial whether by the words -^n^ 
 rTpn rr^'inn ^^ understand the whole Pentateuch, or, with later 
 interpreters {e. g. Vater, Comment, iii. s. 562, ff.), only a part of 
 it ; for in the latter case we should be justly entitled to infer by 
 analogy that the whole book was so kept, since there is no reason 
 why a fragment of Deuteronomy alone should have such a place 
 assigned to it. But the passage leads us further. The word 'yr^'Q 
 of itself (as distinguished from n^^TlS * section or imrt) denotes a 
 
 whole, something bound together with that intent ; and hence the 
 passage is to be classed with those which speak of the Pentateuch, 
 according to a usage which came gradually to be estabhshed, under 
 the definite appellation of "^q^iI-t (Exod. xvii. 14, xxiv. 7; Deut. 
 xxviii. 58 — 61 ; comp. Jahn Einleit ii. s. 21, fiF.). Here, then, 
 we have intimation of the earliest collection of holy books, and of 
 their especial conservation. In the words (Deut. xxxi. 26) 
 " and this shall be for a witness against thee," we have an an- 
 nouncement deeply' rooted in the essence of the Theocracy, and 
 what in this respect constituted its peculiarity. It was requisite 
 that the Law, the most sublime expression of the Divine righ- 
 teousness, should be placed where God's presence and glory were 
 especially manifested, there to witness before his throne against the 
 sins of the people, where at the same time his mercy was pro- 
 claimed. 
 
 What was thus appointed by Moses, and was evidently so closely 
 connected with the purpose of God that his chosen people should 
 be always in possession of his word, was not likely to be soon for- 
 gotten, especially under one so full of living zeal for the Theo- 
 cracy as Joshua. Following the example of Moses, Joshua wrote 
 down in the Book of the Law of the Lord the History which bears 
 his name •} and this evidently refers to the passage in Deuteronomy, 
 and hence must be understood as intimating that this document 
 also found a place in the side of the Ark of the Covenant. The 
 act of copying here referred to is mentioned in immediate connec- 
 tion with the raising of a stone by the sanctuary (Josh. xxiv. 26) ; 
 the design of which was the same as that of the Law, and had the 
 
 1 In how far the words riVs" a'^^aiM refer to the book of Joshiia will be shown in the 
 special Introduction. 
 
 B 2 
 
20 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 same symbolical import as a witness against the people. As the 
 laying of the written document in the temple was already under- 
 stood, its purport is not explained ; only the symbolical signifi- 
 cation of the new act here combined with it is stated. The remark 
 of Le Clerc on this passage is perfectly just : " facile fuit volumini 
 Mosaico quod depositum erat ad latus arcae (Deut. xxxi. 24, 26), 
 adglutinaro membranam, in qua haec scriberentur." 
 
 In later times also we find traces of the observance of this same 
 custom. Thus Samuel wrote " the law of the kingdom" (tOStp^ 
 p^^l^^;-f) i)i the Book ("^Q^^) and laid it up before Jehovah ( 1 Sam. 
 X. 26). The expression *^5£)n here plainly intimates that it is of 
 
 some particular well-known book that the affirmation is made, to 
 which the documents of Samuel were appended so as to enlarge it. 
 Here also the occasion was analogous to that in the case of the 
 Pentateuch ; for these documents were to serve as witnesses of the 
 veracity of Samuel, and of what he had told the people respecting 
 the choice of a king. That the Pentateuch at least was in later 
 times preserved in the same place appears frem that part of the 
 history of Josiah where we are told that the Book of the Law was 
 found in the temple (2 Kings xxii. 8) ; for though it is not stated 
 in what part of the temple it was found, yet this may be gathered 
 sufficiently from the consideration that had any other place been 
 intended than that which the Law itself had made sufficiently 
 known it would have been mentioned.^ In fine we have to notice 
 here the passage in Is. xxxiv. 10, where we read of a 'pi^xV 1DD* 
 Gesenius remarks here (Comment. I. s. 921) "the poet seems to 
 contemplate the placing of his oracle in a collection of oracles and 
 holy writings from which posterity might judge of the correctness 
 of his prediction." In this case the expression must relate to pro- 
 phecies delivered at another time, and such, referring to the object 
 of the prophet, viz. the destruction of Edom, were to be found al- 
 ready in the Pentateuch. It accords well, also, with Isaiah's habit 
 
 1 Nothing but tbe unexampled arbitrariness of the neologian criticism could main- 
 tain in tlie face of the most decisive testimony of so many closely connected passages 
 that " previous to the exile the sacred books of the Israelites were not kept in the 
 temple," or that " the Pentateuch was not deposited in the temple but in the conse- 
 crated (sic !) dwelling of the High Priest," as Hartmnan asserts (iib. d. Pentat. a. 
 569). What must be the fate of Israelitish history so long as people fettered by such 
 prejudices mishandle it ? 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 21 
 
 of referriog to the exact coincidence of other prophecies in support 
 of his own (xlii. 0, xlv. 19, xlvi. 10, xlviii. 5, G.) The mode 
 however, in whicli this Book of Jehovah is introduced as one well 
 known, and which the people are exhorted to search {'Qjnn, cf. 
 ipevvav ra? jpacf)d<;, John v. 59), as well as the general appella- 
 tion, " Book of Jehovah," Jehovah's revelations, can be satisfacto- 
 rily explained only on the supposition that the reference here is to 
 a publicly known collection of the Scriptures, so that this passage 
 may be justly combined with the preceding. 
 
 The only passage which can with any show of reason be adduced 
 as opposed to facts so well ascertained and so well supported by the 
 analogy of all antiquity is 1 Kings viii. 9; comp. 2 Chron. v. 10. 
 (De Wette, Einl., s. 18.) But how strangely our critics have acted 
 here is apparent from the circumstance that De Wette makes no 
 reference to the passage in Chronicles, though word for word the 
 same as that in Kings ; and why so? Because this would have 
 upset his hypothesis, for, according to him, the time when the 
 Chronicles were composed and the Levitical spirit with which they 
 are imbued, would have prevented the occurrence of any such dis- 
 crepancy (between them, to wit, and the Pentateuch.) But wherein 
 lies the alleged discrepancy ? In Kings we read that in the Ark 
 of the Covenant ('J'i-^^^) nothing was found but the Decalogue ; 
 according to Deut. xxxi. 2G the whole Thorah was placed in the 
 side of the Ark ('j'')"^^ "^JJTi^-) '^^^ harmony of these two state- 
 ments must appear to every sound judgment, and Josephus has al- 
 ready (Antiq. viii. 2) rightly explained the passage thus. Comp. 
 also the passage Heb. ix. 4, where whatever other difficulties may 
 attach to it, it is plain that the writer speaks only of the vrXa/ce? 
 rf}? 8ia67]ic7]<i as being in the Ark of the Covenant. 
 
 The opinion that the whole Pentateuch was kept in the Ark is 
 to be traced to the superstition of the Kabbins^ and to the ignorance 
 of those Christian Fathers who followed them. Perhaps they 
 
 1 See the Diss, de aroa foederis of tbe younger Bustorf in his Exereitatt. nd histor., &c., 
 p. 64 sq. These Rabbins transhited the term '^i^'s, " on the inner side of the Ark," con- 
 trary to all grammatical rule, see e. gr. 1 Sam. vi. 8. Comp. also Kenuicott Dissert. II. 
 super rationem textus Hebr. V. T., p. 289 sq. 
 
 2 Comp. Epiphan, de ponder, et meusur. c. 4 (the text of this will be found corrected 
 in Eichhorn's Einleit. I.§3) ; Joan. Damascen. de orthod. fid. iv, 18 {tKuvTo iv Tij ki- 
 f-iwTw.) Hence arose rapntion even of archives belonging to the temple (archivis 
 
22 HISTORY OF THfi CANON. 
 
 hoped by this to increase the reputation of the Pentateuch or that 
 of the Ark.^ Most probably the fiction had its rise in the practice 
 of the modern Jews, who are in the habit of preserving in their 
 synagogues a copy of the sacred books, which is placed in a box 
 resembling the Ark of the Covenant (Vitringa Archisynagogus, p. 
 169, sq,) Similar fictions have been repeated with respect to some 
 apocryphal books, as, e. gr., the history of Joseph the Carpenter, 
 in the prologue to which it is said that it is to be deposited in the 
 temple at Jerusalem. (See Thilo, Cod. Apoc. N. T, i. p. 4.) 
 
 § 7. CIRCUMSTANCES CONDUCIVE TO THE CLOSING OF THE CANON. 
 
 So long as the Theocracy remained firm and unassailed by any 
 storms threatening its ruin, the beginning of such a collection of 
 holy writings would be sufficient, especially whilst it was in the 
 keeping of the prophets. As these were specially and peculiarly 
 the watchmen of Sion, called and chosen of God to guard the 
 Theocracy and to preserve the honour of Jehovah against all impure, 
 sinful, and idolatrous influences, how could they more faithfully 
 fulfil their duty than by carefully discriminating all that was truly 
 holy from all that was mixed with human frailty and defilement ? 
 and of course, as part of this, the divinely inspired writings from 
 such as were the product of mere human wisdom ? Moreover, so 
 long as the Holy Place remained , there was in it a special security 
 for the writings placed within it.^ For it contained no objects but 
 such as were consecrated to God. Jehovah himself was enthroned 
 there in glorious majesty between the Cherubim, and no man dare 
 touch or even behold the holy things on pain of death (Num. iv. 
 15, flf. ; 2 Sam. vi. 6), for the wrath of God would kindle on any 
 who attempted to defile them. Hence Abarbanel on Deut. xxxi, 
 26 remarks very justly : " God deposited there the Book of the 
 
 templi). Augustiu. de Mirabil. ss. II. 33 (a spurious writing not older tlian the seventh 
 century. See the third volume of the Benedictine edition.) 
 
 1 As is the case in the Mohammedan Sagas; see the interpreters of the Koran in 
 Maracci Sur. 2. 249. 
 
 2 Jahn (Einl, I. 56) says with justice on this point : " These men of God would not 
 have allowed falsifications of the sacred books to pass unnoticed, by whomsoever the 
 attempt might have been made," though we cannot assent to what follows, in which he 
 says : " As not a word is let drop by any of them to this effect, we infer that at this time 
 no such attempt was ever made." 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 23 
 
 Law, to remain there as a true and abiding witness, and that no 
 one might have the power of falsifying or disfiguring it. None 
 could injure writings deposited among the genealogies and with the 
 priests." 
 
 At the time of the return from the exile, new relations rendered 
 a new mode of conservation necessary. Of these the more weighty 
 are the following : 1. Tliesanctuary no longer aflforded aplacefor the 
 writings which hitherto had been preserved there. Both Josephus 
 and the Mishna attest that after the destruction of the first temple 
 the Ark of the Covenant disappeared for ever.^ According to 
 Josephus the Holy of Holies was empty : eKetro Be ovSev 0X0)9 iv 
 dvra (De Bell. Jud. VI. 6.) With this passage must be com- 
 bined those in which Josephus speaks of the ev to) lepoi dva- 
 KeifiivT} <ypa(f)rj (Antiq. iii. 1) and twv dvaKeifiivcov iv tu> iepa. 
 fypafi/xdrcov (ibid. 5, 1), as it shows that in them Josephus cannot 
 be speaking of the Holy of Holies. Comp. also De Bell. Jud. 
 Vn. 5. It is also highly probable that after the restoration of the 
 temple the sacred writings were kept not so much for the sake of 
 their careful preservation as for use that they might be read ; and 
 with this the representation of the Talmud closely agrees (comp. 
 Reland, Antiq. Sac. p. 47.) At all events, after the restoration 
 there was not the same kind of guarantee for the preservation of 
 these writings as we know to have existed during earlier times ; for 
 this security depended entirely on the constitution of the temple 
 and the manifestation in it of Jehovah — a relation which was quite 
 changed after the exile (Carpzov, Apparat. Hist. Crit. p. 297 sq.) 
 
 2. A necessity must then also have arisen for the formation of a 
 collection of those divinely-inspired books which were not pre- 
 served in the temple. The greater the number of such isolated 
 ■writings, the more urgent the need for collecting and preserving 
 them. Had such documents remained in the hands of private in- 
 dividuals, the consequence of any Siaariropd of the nation must have 
 been the interpolation or loss of them, unless care had been taken 
 at an early period to fix exactly their number and the text of each. 
 
 3. Besides the writings laid up in the Most Holy Place, and 
 those which, though not thus preserved, yet were composed by 
 
 1 Comp. the Tr, Joma.ed. Sberingham, p. 102 sqq., also Winer, Eeallex. I. 238, 2te 
 Aufl, 
 
24 HISTORY or THE CANON. 
 
 men endowed with extraordinary gifts of the Spirit of God, there 
 were others, of great value in a historical respect, which it was im- 
 portant to preserve, at least in part, and after they had undergone 
 a careful revision, for the purpose of placing all their contents in a 
 just theocratical light, so that there might be displayed throughout 
 the Power, the Righteousness, and the Gracious Faithfulness of 
 Jehovah. Thus there was a Book of the Pious [" Book of Jasher," 
 Eng. Auth. Vers.], or collection of lyrics composed on men who 
 had especially served the Theocracy, or sustained in it a position 
 altogether of peculiar importance (Josh. x. 13 ; 2 Sam. i. 18) ; and 
 the reading of which must have been useful for all, even though 
 the whole might not be communicated to them as a part of the 
 Canon. We find also that, according to a genuine Oriental cus- 
 tom (comp. Jos, cont. Ap. i. G, 10 ; Diodor. Sic. ii. 82), the Kings 
 had annalists of their reign (o'^'^^^tn)' ^'^^^> without being in 
 every case prophets, narrated in chronological order the events 
 which occurred (comp. 1 Kings iv. 3 ; 2 Kings xviii. 18, 37 ; 2 
 Chron. xxxiv. 8 ; Winer Reallex, s. 484, 2te Ausg.). Now, such 
 :a history, if it was to be a certain and instructive testimony for 
 iposterity, required to be brought into a state of unity, not so as to 
 jbe conformed to some arbitrary plan, but so as to be adapted to 
 ithe manifestation of God's will, and which, referring everything to 
 iJehovah, should thus place the history of God's people in the only 
 Ijust light. At the time especially when, for a long period, the 
 ipeople of the Covenant had lost their external existence as God's 
 
 t)eople, the necessity of this must have been peculiarly felt, and thus 
 he thought of collecting the sacred books and constituting a Canon 
 vvould arise even spontaneously in the minds of the people.^ — 
 Moreover, in this respect the Lawgiver had already set them an ex- 
 ample which they would feel bound to follow faithfully. Even 
 during their passage through the wilderness notes were taken of 
 the wars in which at that time they engaged, and these were deno- 
 minated " the Book of the Wars of Jehovah ;" nor was this the 
 work of Moses, but of others his attendants. To it, however, a 
 place could not be assigned beside the Pentateuch, for in point of 
 
 I In this way alone can we estimate ariglit the much-debated question respecting the 
 i;7)»i rfe;)e)Y/(7j of the Old Testament, on which much that is irrelevant has been said; 
 see Hottinger, Thes. p. 539, sq. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 25 
 
 divine authority it did not occupy the same rank ; only Moses 
 might use it, by making extracts from it, and these alone would 
 come to be valuable in a truly theocratic point of view.^ 
 
 4. In addition to this, the change of language which had taken 
 place during the exile would have its effect ; the common people at 
 least having exchanged the Hebrew for the Aramaic (see more on 
 this below, ch. ii.). Hence by the mass of the nation the original 
 Scriptures were no longer understood, still it was of importance to 
 them that these should be preserved entire and uncorrupted, and 
 for this a more exact determination of the Canon was indispensable. 
 These books had now to be translated for the people (see ch. iv.) 
 and this rendered a fixing of the Canon necessary ; for only thus 
 could a proper security be obtained for the genuineness of the 
 writings which, under a new guise, were in this way circulated 
 among them. 
 
 5. The weightiest circumstance, however, which rendered a 
 fixing of the Canon necessary, was the foresight of the divine 
 purpose, which, keeping in view the future design of the people 
 of the Covenant, took from them, for a long period, their pro- 
 phets, in order thus by a negative process to bring them to a 
 sense of their need of redemption. Malachi, the last of the pro- 
 phets, and who lived under Artaxerxes Longimanus, was succeeded 
 by no other deserving that name in its proper sense. Tn the 
 book of Sirach the time of the prophets is referred to as past ; in 
 their time God comforted Jacob, by means of them {irapeKoXeae 
 rov luKO)^, Koi i\vTpQ)craTO avTov<i iv Trlarei eX'rrlho'i, xliv. 10). 
 Of the following time, the Priest Simon was the only person whom 
 the author could hold up as furnishing the ideal of a man meriting 
 well of the Theocracy (ch. 1.). That after the time immediately 
 preceding the return from captivity there were no more prophets, 
 is expressly stated in the first book of Maccabees (a^' ■^9 i)/u,epa<; 
 ovK Mcj)dr} 7rpo(f37]T7]^ ev auTOL<i, ix. 27 ) ; and this in a way which 
 indicates that the author regarded this characteristic of the period 
 referred to with sincere grief. Such lamentations over the loss of 
 
 1 The overlooking of a higher principle of this sort has led to mistakes, as in the case 
 of Hartmann iib. d. Pent. s. 537, who, setting out from the assumption tliat the " Book 
 of the Wars of Jehovah" contains later Sagas than could have been had Moses been 
 living when it was written, concludes that ]NJoses could have made no use of it ; which is 
 one of those reasonings in n circle by means of which the spuriousness of the Penta- 
 teuch is made out. 
 
26 HISTORY or THE CANON, 
 
 the prophets were uttered frequently in the time of the Maccabees 
 (1 Mac. iv. 16 ; xiv. 41) ; and the consciousness of this absence 
 and helplessness pervades the whole history of the time, as one of 
 its most striking features, in that faithful record of it which we 
 have in the books of the Maccabees. (See also Joseph. Antiq. 
 xiii. 1.) Josephus also, much as he endeavoured to exalt his na- 
 tion, could find no traces of any prophet during this period ; John 
 Hyrcanus is the only person whom he even speaks of as sustain- 
 ing this honour, for him he calls prince, high priest, and prophet, 
 in one person (de Bell. Jud. i. 3) ; but it is obvious that the last 
 of these epithets is applied merely on account of Hyrcanus's 
 great sagacity, (toyu-iXet 7ap uvtm to Sai/uLopiov, co9 iirjhev rcav 
 fxeWovToov ayvoelv), and through the historian's evident anxiety 
 to vindicate to his nation, by a vigorous straining, what it had in 
 fact now ceased to possess. The testimony of the Jews, however, 
 is unanimous as to the cessation of prophets after Malachi. 
 Jerome, as a disciple of the Rabbins, and expressing their senti- 
 ments, introduces the Jewish Church as saying : " post Haggaeum 
 et Zachariam et Malachiam nullos ahos prophetas usque ad Jo- 
 hannem Bapt. videram" (ad Jes. xUx. 21.). The famous Seder 
 01am Rabba (c. 30, p. 320, flf.) says : " Prophecy ceased in Is- 
 rael from the time of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi" (see more 
 of this in Vitringa Obss. Sacr. ii. p. 320, sqq.). Thus in room of 
 the living Word, which stood by the people as the unchanging 
 norm of faith and life, something else required to be introduced 
 which in some measure should supply its place. And if even in 
 the time of Jeremiah the want of prophets was felt (comp. Lament, 
 ii. 9 ; Ps. Ixxiv. 9), how much more in the periods following ? 
 Here were circumstances clearly inducing to a collection of the 
 Holy Scriptures, and rendering the want of a Canon felt. 
 
 § 8. TIME or THE CLOSING OF THE CANON. 
 
 The circumstances just considered fix our attention upon the 
 period immediately succeeding the captivity. Before this we find 
 no certain traces of the collection of the sacred writings into a 
 Canon ; and what have been adduced as such are to be referred to 
 mistakes. Thus the expression □"I'^ODfl ^'^^- 'x- 2? cannot in 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 27 
 
 the least, if we regard the context, be understood of a canonical 
 whole, but refers simply to the particular prophecies of Jeremiah, 
 which Daniel had in view when he presented his prayer ; comp. 
 Jer. xxix. 10.^ Still less can we admit the story of the wonderful 
 preservation of the Canon of Jeremiah ; it is derived from sources 
 too turbid to deserve even the name of a tradition (see Fabricius, 
 Cod. Pseudepig. V. T. I. p. 1118); and consequently we must 
 differ from Pareau when he says (Institut. p. 51, [Bib. Cab. vol. 
 viii. p. 5G]), that " this tradition is highly probable," and therefore 
 builds on it an hypothesis of his own. 
 
 Every consideration duly weighed leads to the conclusion that it 
 was in the time of Nehemiah and Ezra that the Canon was com- 
 pleted. 
 
 1 . In itself considered this period must be regarded as the most y 
 suitable for such an undertaking. Years of sorrow had brought 
 as their result a firmer attachment, on the part of the people, to 
 the faith of their fathers ; they cleaved with earnest desire to those 
 consolations which had abounded in bygone times, rich as these 
 were in signs and promises. The more careless and corrupt part 
 of the nation having remained behind, the rest were the more in- 
 clined to a wholesome purification and a spiritual reform. Here, 
 then, begins a new religious epoch ; and from the newly-awakened 
 life of the people, new rehgious institutions had their rise. It is 
 certain that the synagogues ascribe their origin to this epoch 
 (Hartmann, Die Enge Verbindung des A. und N. T. s. 242, ff.), 
 and in them we have only an expression of the general reversion 
 to the law and the Prophets, and the pleasure derived from being 
 occupied with them. It cannot be supposed, especially when we 
 consider the firm inflexible spirit of the age which so naturally 
 arose in this way, that the Canon could escape its notice. It was 
 from this alone, the true basis of the Theocracy, that the new state 
 could obtain security ; and how much the people were penetrated 
 with this convictton, appears sufficiently from such passages as 
 
 1 See this fully shown iu my Comment, ou the place p. 325, ff. V^hat Steudel has ad- 
 vanced (Disquisitio in Dan. ix. 24—27 ; Tub. 1833, p. 15, sq.) iu opposition to my inter- 
 pretation, can hardly be grammatically justified. Certainly the place (1 Chron. xvi. ?4) 
 which he adduces in support of the common construction is against him, for "nEO cannot 
 be construed with a as the sign of the objective, and moreover the sign of the accusative 
 ns is not wanting here. Also the construction of the '^'2 with a and the accusative is 
 without example. 
 
28 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 Nehem. x. It may be observed also, tbat among the Muhamme- 
 dans we find that immediately after Muhammed's death they turned 
 their thoughts to a collection of the Goran (see below Hist, of the 
 Arabic Language, ch. ii.) — an evidence how much in all times, in 
 a season of growing religious fervour, the thoughts of men are 
 directed to the securing of the written documents of their faith. 
 We have assuredly no reason for believing that the Jews in Ezra's 
 time were more indifferent in this respect than the disciples of Ma- 
 hammed in the time of Abubeker. 
 
 2. Certain facts, which we shall examine more fully afterwards, 
 conduct us to the same result. In the first place we find in the 
 time of Ezra and Neheraiah, the Canott, as a whole, treated as a 
 
 C^ sacred document, and regarded with the utmost veneration (see § 
 10.) This proves that it had so become under divine sanction, 
 and that it formed a whole, complete in itself. And, in the next 
 place, we have the Jewish tradition, the credibility of which we shall 
 afterwards prove, regarding the aalhor of the Canon, in full 
 
 cl accordance with this (see § 9.) 
 
 3. In the Book of Sirach we have a positive testimony to our 
 position. It is true, the age of this testimony is doubtful, for of 
 the grandfather of the translator, the author of the book in the 
 original Hebrew, we can only say that he must have lived some- 
 
 ■'^ where between 300 and 400 years before Christ.-^ Nevertheless 
 this does not annihilate the value of the testimony ; for at all 
 events this is the oldest book we possess written during that 
 period, and thus it is of importance in reference to the Canon in a 
 twofold point of view. On the one hand, it is noticeable that this 
 work, written in Hebrew or Aramaic, was not admitted into the 
 Canon ; and this, in spite of the lofty pretensions made by the 
 author himself, who, according to his own testimony, has here pro- 
 duced a book which is Canonical, for so his words must be under- 
 stood : "Ert TratSeiav &)? opdpov (fxoTLCt) kuI eiccpavco aura eco<; et? 
 fiaKpav. "Eti BiBaaKoXiav ft)9 irpo^rjreiav iK-)^eoi, koI KaTa\6i'\lr(o 
 avT7]v ek <y6V€a<i aldovcov, 24, 33, 34. Not less important is the 
 passage in which the author speaks of himself, as the last of 
 
 1 That nothing is to be gained by a statement of the common grounds pro and cun 
 in this question has been sufficiently proved by Wiuer De utriusque Siracidae aetata 
 Erlangen, 1832. It is surprising that nevertheless he alone of all has decided for the 
 Jater date of the book on the hypothesis of the later closing of the Canon, p. 18, sq. 
 
 3 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 29 
 
 the Sages (e«T%aTO<? riypinrvqaa), and comparing himself with 
 Solomon (xxx. IG), falls into the prophetic tone: KaTavorjaare 
 on ovK e/xol /jlovm eKoiriacra — anovaark fiov neyicrrdve'; \aov kolI 
 01 rjyov fxevot eKK\rjcrla<; ivcorlcracrOe (xxx. 17, 18) ; or when he 
 concludes with the proud words : fxaKapLO^ o<f iv rovToa avaarpa- 
 <p^cr€TaL KoX 6 del'i avra eirl Kaphiav avrov aocjaa-Orjcrerai. ^Eav 
 <yap avTa TTOLrjcrr/ Trpof iravra layyaei, oTi 0a>9 Kvptov to t'^yo^ 
 avTov (1. 28.) After such statements we may justly ask, How came 
 it to pass that a work making such pretensions was not admitted 
 into the Canon ? And the only answer we can give is, that the 
 already firmly established authority of the Canon prevented it. It 
 is justly remarked by Hassler (de psalmis Maccahaicis, part. I. p. 
 7) : "eundem (lib. Sirac.) testem habemus eo tempore quo viveret 
 (cir. an. 180 A. C), oranera Vet. Testamenti libroram collectionem 
 jam absolutam fuisse. Nam liber ejus Itehraice quidem scriptus et 
 dignus qui reciperetur in reliquorum numerum (at least according 
 to its own assertions) non receptus est." Comp. part ii. p. 7. 
 
 On the other hand, we have, in accordance with this, the judg- 
 ment of the son of Sirach respecting the Canon ; inasmuch as he 
 not merely cites and refers to separate books of it, but views it as a 
 completed whole. Thus the Prologue of the translator cites the 
 three divisions of the Canon (see on this § II) ; and particularly 
 the last of them, by the expression ra atCKa Trdrpca ^i^X'ut, and 
 ra \onra rwv /Si^Xtcov. According to some, indeed, of our more 
 recent critics, this token of the Canon is very dubious. Hitzig 
 (Begr. d. Kritik., p. 98), thinks that the " vague" expression to, 
 aXXa K. T. X,., indicates that the collection had not yet received the 
 general title Q'^^.n^, dyioypacjia, and that the collection itself had 
 not been completed. To the same eflFect Eedepenning (Theol. 
 Stndien und Kritiken, 1833, p. 8G0) concludes that from this ex- 
 pression we may prove " the gradual transition from the canonical 
 literature to the apocryphal." De Wette also says : " that from 
 this it cannot be proved that at that time the completion of the 
 third division had taken place," (Einl. p. 18.) Alas for these 
 critics that the same and similar " vague" expressions occur as 
 denoting the Chetubim in Josephus, Philo, and the New Testament 
 (see § 11) ; a circumstance which might have made them a little 
 more cautious in their assertions, as on their grounds it would fol- 
 low from this that even in the time of Christ the Canon was not 
 
30 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 completed. The expression, however, is anything but vague. It 
 is not said simply " other," or " some remaining writings," but 
 
 ^ " the other," " the rest," ra oKKa, ra Xotira. (Comp. Matthiae's 
 Greek Grammar, vol. ii., § 268, p. 393, Eng. Tr., 4th edit.) Thus 
 it denotes a definite class distinct from the Law and the Prophets ; 
 and this is sufficiently clear from the very form of the expression, to, 
 XoLTra Tcov /Si^Xlcov, especially the use of the genitive. 
 
 We can, however, adduce from this book of Sirach a still older 
 witness, one hitherto overlooked, but whose word is sufficient to 
 remove all doubt as to the fact of the Canon having been then 
 closed. In this book we find a hymn on the Fathers of Israel, the 
 famous men of former times, and the author commences this at eh. 
 xliv. with some general characteristic remarks. Amongst these he re- 
 fers to their written memorials, and arranges them under three heads ; 
 
 / he speaks of the Lait^, of which he frequently elsewhere makes men- 
 tion, and always in the most respectful terms. (Comp. xlv. 5, ivro- 
 Xal, vofioi; ^cor]<;, Kol eina-rrjixT)^, Siadr]Kr], KpifiaTU, &c.) And of the 
 rest he makes mention of but two classes, the one consisting of the 
 airrjXyrjKore^ iv 7rpo^7]Telat<i, the other of the Siiryovfxevoi eTrt] iv 
 jpa(pfi, xliv. 3, 4. There is here an antithesis not to be over- 
 looked, and this the author keeps in view during the subsequent 
 context (comp. xlvii. 6, 17.). The last class he characterises also 
 as aoipol XoyoL 7rai8eia<;, and fiiXT] fiovaiKcov ; the most striking 
 feature of this collection being that it contains the Proverbs and the 
 poems designed for liturgical purposes. Supposing irpocfirjTelai, to 
 be the title of the one collection, and of this there cannot be the 
 least doubt, since the Prologue so names it — that of the other was 
 certainly jpacpal, writings in general. This much at least is cer- 
 tain, that this book makes mention of these as the otili/ parts of 
 the canonical documents ; and this is sufficient to annihilate all un- 
 certainty as to whether the book recognises a completed Canon. 
 
 4. On this so weighty a testimony leans a more recent one, in it- 
 self certainly not without force, but at the same time deriving its 
 principal importance from its agreement with the results obtained 
 from the book of Sirach. It is that of Josephus, Cont. Apionem I. 
 § 8. (Comp. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 10.) In order to confute 
 
 1 I cannot, therefore, with Dr Hengstenberg call it the " most significant witness.'^ 
 Beitr. 3. 245. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 31 
 
 his opponent and to establish the truth of the Hebrew history {irepl 
 TMV ap')(aiutv d\r]dov<; IcrTopias:) especially in contrast with the 
 Grecian, Josephus begins with the assertion that the Greeks had 
 not like the Jews a SrjfiocrLav ava<ypa<^y]v, and in that case also no 
 irepl Ta<i avaypacf^a'? eTrifxiXecav. With the Orientals the latter 
 was supplied by priests and philosophers ;^ to whom the Hebrew 
 priests, who preserved a perpetual unity of tribe, and consequently 
 carefully conserved the books entrusted to them,^ and the Prophets, 
 the writers of these books, bore an analogy. The whole thus 
 formed he calls T01/9 vofiovi koX ra? fxera tovtcov ava'ypa<jid<i, and 
 divides it into twenty-two books, five for the Law, thirteen for the 
 Prophets, and four of holy songs and sentences.^ It was not every 
 one, he says, who was permitted among the Jews to write therein ; 
 only the Prophets were competent, in virtue of their divine inspi- 
 ration {Kara ttjv iirivoLav diro tov Oeov — comp. the notable pas- 
 sage Antiqq. iv. 8) to describe the most ancient events, or to write 
 the history of their own times with perfect accuracy. The twenty- 
 two books of his nation were justly esteemed divine (ra SL<ca[a)<; dela 
 TreirtcrTevfiiva — this is the correct reading in place of rd Sck. vreTr. 
 Comp. Havercamp in loc. Jahn, p. 127). The thirteen Prophets 
 wrote their history from the death of Moses to the reign of Ar- 
 taxerxes.* From Artaxerxes to our day everything also has been 
 recorded in books, but these have not been regarded as deserving 
 equal credit with the fortner because of the failure of the exact 
 succession of the Prophets {jriaTew^, Se otr^ ofjuoia^ rj^lwrai t?}? irpo 
 avTwv, hia rb fi-q jeveadai, ttjv twv Trpo<^riTO)v d-Kpi^rj SiaSo')(i]v) . 
 
 From this testimony it is at least incontestably clear how sharply 
 Josephus and his Jewish contemporaries distinguished between the 
 canonical and apocryphal writings. In this passage, it is true, 
 he states some things as his private opinion, but the rest he cer- 
 tainly adduces as the common judgment of his contemporaries. To 
 
 1 Ot tEpais Tjorav iyKEXiipi<Tfj.(voi Kal irepl TauTa? i(pL\o(r6(povv. He refers to the 
 Babylonians and Egyptians. 
 
 2 IleepuXaKTai fxETa TToWri? aKpifSela^. Comp. also as a commentary on this pas- 
 sage Selden's tract de successionibns in Pontif, p. 197 — 204. 
 
 3 So reckoned the Alexandrian Jews according to the numeral power of the alphabetic 
 letters. Comp. Origen in Euseb. H. E. vi 2-5. Jahn Einl. i. 128, ff. 
 
 * Mf XP' '''V^ ^ApTa^tp^ov .... apx'i^- Some codd. incoiTectly omit the apxjj^. Oe- 
 der by mistake renders it beginning in place of reign ; Freie Unters. iib. d. Kanon, s. 63. 
 
32 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 the former belongs the chronological datum in the passage, " from 
 Moses to Artaxerxes." If we compare his Archiiology we shall find 
 that he relates the history of his people, from Joshua as far as the 
 book of Esther, strictly according to the Old Testament writings in 
 keeping with his own declarations (see the Proem, and Antiqq. x. 
 10). Now since the events recorded in the book of Esther happened, 
 according to Josephus (Antiqq. xi. G), in the reign of Artaxerxes, 
 it is natural that this date should be viewed by him as the epoch 
 of the completion of the sacred books. But there are two points 
 in which Josephus gives us in the above passage the opinion of 
 his cotemporaries ; the one is that these writings were reverenced 
 as divinely authorised (ireTriaTevfMiva) ; the other is, that others 
 were not held worthy of credit, Sta to /xr) r^evkaOaL ttjv t&v 7rpo(f)'r}- 
 Twv uKpi^ri hiaho-)(r}v. What do these last words intimate ? They 
 cannot refer merely to the completion of the books of the Prophets, 
 for it would have sufficed for this to say, " since prophets no longer 
 existed." But the Jews in the time of Josephus felt that a htahoxv 
 irpocjirjTcov was needed for the canonical authority of a book, that 
 is evidently for the purpose of determining whether any book was 
 canonical or not. Supposing, then, that after prophecy had ceased 
 a single prophet had appeared, it would not have been competent 
 for him to insert his own writings in the Canon, inasmuch as there 
 was no longer the dKpL^r]<; BtaBo^rj. The cessation of this Jose- 
 phus places in the time of Artaxerxes, when the book of Esther 
 T was written, and declared to be canonical. This latter opinion has 
 no greater weight with us than belongs to any private judgment 
 of that age ; but especially important is the conclusion, announced 
 as the general opinion, that a regular succession of prophets is ne- 
 cessary for the authentication of canonical writings ; whence it fol- 
 lows that at the termination of this the Canon was regarded as a 
 fixed and absolute whole. Hence Josephus says expressly : roaov- 
 Tov fyap aioivo<i ')]S7] 7rapa)')(T)K6ro<; ovre irpo'ideivaC Tt9 ovhev oirre 
 aijjekelv avrwv ovre jxeTadeivat TeroX/xrjKev, a valuable commentary 
 on the other passage. In the time of Josephus the conviction was 
 most firmly established that a Canon, thoroughly genuine and free 
 from all human additions, had been handed down through the me- 
 dium of the prophets, and had been so regarded during the entire 
 interval between his time and the period at which the prophetic sue- 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 33 
 
 cession terminated. No more express testimony than tbis exists 
 in proof that the Canon was closed soon after the Babylonish cap- 
 tivity.^ 
 
 Let us now proceed to examine the opposite views respecting the 
 closing of the Canon. Spinoza (Tract, theol. pol. c. 10) speaks, 
 generally of books inserted in the Canon after the Maccabean age, 
 but without specifying any in particular. Hobbes says : " Mani- 
 festum satis est Veteris Testamenti Scripturam totam ea forma 
 quam nunc vidomus neque ante reditum a captivitate Babyl. neqiie 
 post Ptoleinaei Philad. tempora edilam fuisse." (Leviath. p. 
 179.) Leclerc was the first to go from a new standing-point more 
 thoroughly into the subject, in the Sentimens de quelques theolog. 
 &c., p. 216, ff. Founding principally on the position that more 
 recent objects are referred to in the Canon than such as were known 
 in the time of Ezra, Leclerc was of opinion that the collection of 
 the Canon is due to the zealous endeavours of pious individuals 
 who had preserved the separate parts of it until the reading of the 
 Prophets along with the Law came into use in the age of the Mac- 
 cabees, which rendered the collecting of the whole necessary. 
 
 Notwithstanding this, Eichhorn, in the first edition of his Ein- 
 leitung, announced that, " shortly after the close of the Babylonish 
 exile and the founding of the new state in Palestine, the venerable 
 remains of the Hebrew sacred writings were all collected ;" and no 
 time, according to his " historical feeling," was more suitable than 
 this. Bauer, however, affirmed that the Canon, as it existed in the 
 time of Christ, did not receive its form and substance before the 
 time of the Maccabees (Einl. s! 30); in evidence of which he ad- 
 duced the closing chapters of Daniel and the genealogies in Chro- 
 nicles. So also Augusti (Einl. § 48.). This induced Eichhorn 
 to renounce his " historical feeling," which had hitherto conducted 
 him aright, and on account of Paniel and Obadijah to ascribe the 
 
 1 See on this the deduction of Hengstenberg, Beitrage s. 2i8, who nevertheless treats 
 the whole testimony of Josephus too unhesitatingly as the aggregate opinion of his time. 
 (Comp. also Keil, Apologet. Versuch. neb. d. Chronik. s. 82, ff.) Hence also the inves- 
 tigation of the contradiction between Josepbus's private judgment and tradition appear?, 
 to me not pertinently grounded, and too artificial. 
 
 2 In opposition to this, Carpzov admirably remarks, Introd. i. 21, " publicam non pri- 
 vatam canonis compositionem fuisse oportuit, siquidem ut liber aliquis canonicus sit 
 non suflBcit eum esse divinitus inspiratum, sed hoc imiiper requiritur, utdivinilus onli, 
 rtatui atqve consecratus ac traditms sit ecclesiae pro regulafichi et morum" 
 
 C 
 
 I 
 
34 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 closing of the Canon to the Maccabean age (Einl. i. s. 40, ff., 4te 
 
 Aufl.). 
 
 Characteristic is the turn which this opinion has taken in the 
 hands of these theologians, when one considers by what reasons 
 they were influenced towards it. It was not by free, independent 
 historical investigation they were guided, for of the grounds adduced 
 by us — grounds positive and drawn from history — not the slightest 
 notice is taken by them; they were swayed by certain prejudices 
 which they fostered in reference to the composition of certain books, 
 and under the influence of which some still come to the inquiry. 
 But such special investigations should not be neglected here ; else 
 will hypothesis on hypothesis be constructed, and this will render 
 the entire superstructure, to say the least, suspected. At any rate 
 every one must feel bound to admit the existence here of a con- 
 tradiction, if the history of the Canon gives one result and the his- 
 tory of particular books another. Whilst it is the business of 
 special criticism to evince the assonance of the latter with the for- 
 mer, it would be monstrous to assign to the latter a supremacy 
 over the former ; this would be an act of usurpation. 
 
 This was felt by later theologians. Bertholdt (i., s. 70, £F„ es- 
 pecially § 80, fF.) has very fully exhibited the gradual formation of 
 the Canon even in the time of the Maccabees. But on analysing the 
 grounds for this, we find that it is in consequence of the peculiar 
 form of the Ketubim that this later arrangement has been supposed ; 
 for "some of these books received their existing form at a period 
 not earlier than the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (b.c. 163)," § 
 84, and thus we are brought back to the old preconception and pre- 
 judice. True, Bertholdt adduces two reasons which he thinks in 
 favour of so late a collecting. The one is, as Bauer had before 
 urged, the religious zeal of one party under the first Maccabees 
 excited by the lukewarmness and faithlessness of the other. But 
 will not this apply to the time of Nehemiah as well ? And besides, 
 as the time of the Maccabees, even at the best, was utterly destitute 
 of the gift of inspiration from heaven,^ it must be placed on a par 
 with that of Josephus, and what he says of the latter, be held as 
 applicable to it : ovre irpodOelval rt,^ ovSev oihe a(})e\eLv avrcov 
 
 1 " Tliis unbappy age Lad lost all faith in a spirit of Gotl operating on men." De Wette 
 Bibl. Dogm. ^ 143. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 35 
 
 ovre ixeradelvai reroXfirj/cev, or as he says of himself : /J^rjSe 
 'TTpocrrcdeL'i tl TOc<i irpdy/xacnv avrot'^ tSiov, fJb-rjr d(j)aipecv virecr- 
 XV/^^vo<; (Andqq. X. 10.) Of more weight is the second reason 
 assigned, borrowed from Eichhorn (Einl. in die Apoc. s. 9), 
 viz., that at this time men were led to close the Canon in con- 
 sequence of the multitude of writings which were appearing. 
 But Eichhorn himself nullifies this reason by admitting that the 
 non-reception of any of these later writings into the Canon proves 
 the existence of an earlier completion of the Canon, to which as a 
 standard the parties held themselves justified in appeahng ; and 
 thus this reason fails of itself. Moreover, Bertholdt's opinion rests 
 upon several false inductions, as will appear from the following 
 remarks. 
 
 Whilst De Wette accepted Bertholdt's results without any more 
 extended investigation, Bleek laboured further to establish this 
 view,i with the modification, however, that at first the Pentateuch 
 was put together (in the time of Ezra), and afterwards all the other 
 books were atone time joined to the book of the Law. But this 
 only augments the difficulty of the hypothesis, for who will now 
 avow that the Maccabean age was so bold as to form an entirely 
 new Canon 1 Surely what cannot be shown to be tenable as re- 
 spects particular books is still less tenable or conceivable in refe- 
 rence to a complete new collection. Bleek rests his hypothesis on 
 two passages, 2 Mace. ii. 13 (on which see next section), and 
 Nehem. viii. 10, where it is alleged the Thorah appears as the only 
 pubHc known book of authority. To this Hengstenberg replies 
 that the Thorah was viewed as especially holy, as the highest rule of 
 the whole Theocracy (Beitr. § 239) ; to which it may be added 
 that a reason for its being so exclusively read may be found in the 
 ignorance of the people concerning it, of which we have in Neh. 
 xiii. I, fi., so remarkable an example. But that even in the time of 
 Ezra there were several books joined with the Pentateuch as cano- 
 nical seems to me indubitable from such passages as Nehem. xii. 
 44 — 46. Here mention is made of arrangements according to the 
 Law, ver. 44, and of others " according to the commandment of 
 David, and Solomon his son," ver. 45, and in ver. AQ, of songs of 
 praise and thanksgiving, which were again, as of old in the days of 
 
 1 In the Theol. Zeitschrift of Schleiernmclier, De Wette and Luecke H. 3, 198. 
 
 C 2 
 
36 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 David and Asaph, sung unto the honour of Jehovah. Such a 
 juxtaposition of the Thorah with other books is very remarkable ; the 
 liturgical use of the Psalms of David, and the following of the re- 
 gulations of David and Solomon, indicate that they were viewed as 
 possessing a normal authority. But on this point we shall say more 
 in the following section. ■"• 
 
 We subjoin here only the general observation, that the arrange- 
 ment of the Canon furnishes the weightiest objection to this hypo- 
 thesis, inasmuch as it presupposes a fixed plan, a determined 
 principle. From this objection Bleek's modification affords no re- 
 lief; even in it there is mention made of a successive formation of 
 the collection of the Hagiographa (§ 199). If, however, there be, 
 for books so diverse from each other as those of the Old Testament, 
 a fixed principle on which they are classified, and if this be not that 
 of the order of time in which they were composed, it is impossible 
 to regard the collection as the work oi. successive epochs. For such a 
 work there must have been persons penetrated by the same spirit, and 
 acting on the same uniform principle ; it must have been done 
 therefore at one period; and hardly an epoch can be fixed on 
 for this but that of Ezra and Nehemiah. 
 
 § 9. BY WHOM WAS THE CANON COLLECTED ? 
 
 Were the opinion of De Wette, that " the entire Old Testament 
 collection was certainly formed gradually, and, as it were, of itself," 
 (s. 17), well-founded, such an enquiry as that on which we are now 
 about to enter would be superfluous and absurd. But to say nothing 
 of the impossibility of this a priori, for it is not more credible 
 that there should be a self-created collection, formed by writings 
 blown together by chance — like the oracles of the Pythian seeress 
 — than that there should be a self-created book ; it is clear from 
 what we have already seen, that before the exile there existed a 
 collection of sacred writings, and that the formers of it were known 
 (§ 6). Hence this strange hypothesis is historically incorrect; 
 
 1 When Hengstenberg urges against Bleek those passages in which the inspiration of 
 the Prophets appears as a thing generally believed in the days of Ezra, his reasoning 
 seems irrelpvant ; for this has never been questioned, but only their reception into the 
 Canon. [But if a book was generally received as the work of an inspired Prophet, 
 would not its canouicity be also admitted us a matter of course ? — Tb.] 
 
HISTORY OF TIIK CANON'. o7 
 
 aurl indeed nothing but the fettering influence of having a side to 
 defend at all hazards could have led to its being broached. 
 
 We begin with what the tradition of the Talmud has handed 
 down concerning this subject, and, in the first place, its relations con- 
 cerning an institution of the times of Ezra, the Great Synagogue. 
 To us these appear anything but a mere fable, " not worthy even 
 of refutation" (De Wette, s. 15) ; we beheve that, unless all certain 
 results are to be relinquished, and free scope given to arbitrary 
 assumptions, great respect must be bestowed upon these ancient 
 and important traditions. 
 
 The oldest and most remarkable testimony on this subject occurs 
 in one of the oldest portions of the Talmud, The Sayings of the 
 Fathers {r\yi^ "^pIQ) (Mishnah ed. Surenhus IV. 109). This 
 book thus begins : " Moses received the Law at Sinai ; he trans- 
 mitted it to Joshua ; Joshua to the Elders ; the Elders to the Pro- 
 phets ; the Prophets to the Men of the Great Synagogue." There 
 was thus a college, an association formed, by means of which the 
 religion of their fathers might be faithfully preserved. In this 
 writing it is said of the Great Synagogue that their office is to 
 " surround the Thorah with a hedge" (n"\*ir\S ^"'''D 'WV^' '^" ^^' 
 lusion to Exod. xix. 12, 18, and intended to apply to the Masorah 
 (comp. the Mishna IV. 442), which has really, by its determination 
 of the text, and the collecting of the traditions thereto belonging, 
 set a hedge around it.'^ Now this testimony presupposes that the 
 Canon was already complete ; for how could work upon the text 
 begin unless the text itself was in existence V Hence the Tal- 
 mud ascribes to the Masoretes a great antiquity, and attributes 
 to tlie Great Synagogue similar occupations ; comp. the Tr. Kiddus- 
 him fol. 30, 1. — " The ancients (□''ilUJi^'^) ^^^ called Scribes 
 (0*^*1210)' because they numbered all the letters of the Law."' To 
 this we may add such passages as the Megillah (Babyl.) fol. 20. 2, 
 where the same sort of occupations are imputed to the Great 
 Synagogue. 
 
 These, however, are only indirect testimonies, and their suitable- 
 ness and importance do not appear until we view this in the light 
 of two weighty passages in the Babylonian Gemara, Tr. Baba 
 
 1 Comp. Hartmann Die Euge Vpibiudung des A. and N. T. s. 131, ff. 
 
 2 Quod ajunt B'jVrs'^ priores, priscos sic vocatos esse, id demonfstrat eos Talmude 
 longe superiores et autiquiores fuisse et longissime anto Talmud linnc diuumerationem 
 factam. Intelliguntur aiitem viri synagogae magnae ab Ezra proplieta Pt saoeidote coi- 
 lecta, Burtorf, Tiberias p. 4-0. 
 
38 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 Bathra fol. 13, c. 2, fol. 15, c. 2. These are frequently severed 
 from the connection in which they stancl,i and thus being mutilated 
 they are quite misunderstood. In these the Rabbins enlarge at con- 
 siderable length on the subject of the Canon, and communicate 
 some interesting traditions respecting its formation. They first 
 mention fol. 13, c. 2, the arrangement of it, and say : D'^^^H'^ 
 la^i^ ^iDn 1J1^^ int^ ^:D D^i^Qli^' " The wise men say :2 All is 
 one and each part again stands for itself" (i.e. again forms by itself 
 a complete whole). Further: D''i^*'lD 'HTiTy ^T^^^h M^'^'2l^\^ 
 Itl^^ D*'pl'Tl?D C^lin^l' " -^^^ they have left to us the Law, 
 Prophets, and Hagiographa, combined into one ivliole." " Who," 
 they go on to say, " has written (pHD '^?2l) ^^^^^^e books ?" To this 
 it is replied : Moses wrote the Pentateuch and Job ; Joshua the 
 book which bears his name, and eight verses of Deuteronomy ; 
 Samuel the books of Samuel, Judges, and Ruth ; David the 
 Psalms, assisted by ten men ; Jeremiah his book. Lamentations, 
 and the books of Kings ; Hezekiah and his College (Prov. xxv. 
 1) Isaiah, Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes ; the Men of the 
 Great Synagogue Ezekiel, the S(oS€Ka7rp6(f)7]Tov, Daniel, and 
 Esther ; Ezra his book, and the genealogies in the Chronicles ; 
 and Nehemiah finished the Chronicles. 
 
 As this passage is usually translated it is supposed to refer to 
 the composition of these books, and this is taken as the only mean- 
 ing which will suit the verb ^n^ and the context.^ But nothing 
 seems more evident than that the verb here can mean only to insert 
 (in the Canon) to edit. For 1, there is no doubt that "^TO bas 
 this sense ; it occurs even in the Old Testament (s. Winer Lex. p. 
 504), and indeed there is no other word by which in Hebrew, in 
 consequence of the deficiency of that language in compounds, the 
 idea of literary insertion could be expressed.* 2. What goes he- 
 fore is expressly in favour of this meaning, for it is of the Canon 
 and its constitution that the discourse here is. The words ij^^l 
 X2r\'2 stand in the clearest reference to the words i^'i^Q^ 1i^"^in- 
 3. It is only in this way that what follows can be satisfactorily 
 
 1 As for instance by De Welte, s 16. 
 
 2 Consequently expressly ancient esteemed tradition. The xci&e are the most esteemed 
 scribes. See Hartmann Lib. cit. s. 155, 398, 428. 
 
 sComp. Auriviliius, De Synagoga Mag., in bis Dissertationes, edited by J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis, p. 150; De Wette p. 16; and even Hengstenberg, Beitr. s. 2 and 24, &c. 
 
 * A passage strikingly in unison with that before us occurs in Villoison's Anec 
 f}ott, Gr. II. 182: t0tXi)<Tj (sc. Pisistratus) rtivrou 'Ofuipoii Trou}<nv lyy paipov ita- 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 39 
 
 interpreted. This is manifest, e. gr., in the case of what is said 
 of Isaiah and the writings of Solomon, the collecting of which 
 the Talmudists ascribe to Hezekiah and his men. This is con- 
 firmed by comparing the Chaldean Targum upon Prov. xxv. 1, 
 where the •)h^J-^^;-f (they collected) of the original is explained by 
 r)2,]-\31 (they ivrote or transcribed)^ — a passage to which the Tal- 
 mudists evidently had respect when they wrote the words now 
 under notice. Hence the best interpreters of Isaiah (comp. Vi- 
 tringa I., p. 10 ; Gesenius I., s. 10) have not the least hesitation 
 in understanding the reference to that book in the sense we have 
 given. It thus appears that Moses, Joshua, and Samuel are named 
 alike as the editors of their respective books (which is not neces- 
 sarily identical with their composition) on the ground of those pas- 
 sages in the Old Testament (corap. § 0) where they are named as 
 engaged in the formation of the temple collection. 
 
 We have accordingly the best authority for maintaining that in 
 this talmudic passage the closing of the Canon, and the editing of its 
 latest writings, are ascribed to the Great Synagogue, to Ezra, and to 
 Nehemiah. Taken thus the passage has an admirable and self-com- 
 plete connection. The collecting of the canonical writings began 
 with Moses and was completed in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 by the efforts of these and other competent men. The tradition has 
 preserved also the stamp of truth in the enigmatical character 
 which it bears. If we examine the way in which Eashi labours to 
 explain. every particular in it (see the passage cited by De Wette, 
 s. 17), we shall sufficiently see how little the meaning of the whole 
 passage was clear to the later Jews ; and we must the more insist 
 on the intrinsic worth of such a tradition, as in subsequent enquiries 
 (see, for instance, tlie History of the Text) it will like a golden 
 rule affirm itself. Already has the great Vitringa expressed him- 
 self in this respect thus: — "Ipsa inspicienda est traditio ej usque 
 fundaraentura. Traditionum enim Talmiidicanim et inter eas 
 exoticarum tanta apud me est auctoritas, quantum pondus est 
 rationis qua fulciuntur ; quae si ab ipsisdetur vel aliunde appareat 
 probabilis, nulla est spernendi caussa. (Comment, in Jos. I., p. 
 
 (pvXcnrtadai.. Tlie expression i.yy(>a<pov\s explained in another Scholium in the same 
 work : XiytTai otl avi'sppd(pi]<TaiJ viro JltLtTtaTpciTou rd 'O/xnpov TroifJ/uaxa Kai 
 K UT a T a ^ I V avvtTidij<Tai>. 
 
 I The reason is that pry in Chahl. and Talmudic usage has the meaning not of fflfj;' 
 Init of translnle ; comp. Buxtorf, Lex. p. Ifi86 
 
40 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 2G.)" And in fact men are beginning again to acknowledge 
 the historical validity of this tradition, and along with that the 
 truth in the tradition itself concerning the Great Synagogue; and to 
 perceive the unreasonableness of a scepticism which consistently 
 proceeds so far as to doubt the actual existence of a Great Syna- 
 gogue altogether.2 
 
 The objection chiefly urged against the collecting of the Canon 
 according to this tradition is (see Kau loc. cit., p. 185 sq.) that 
 the latter contains a chronological error, inasmuch as in it Simon 
 the Just, who lived long after the time of Ezra, is adduced as a 
 member of the Great Synagogue. Even Keil has been induced by 
 this to doubt the tradition (Lib. cit., p. 88 ff.) But without any 
 just reason. For it is to be observed, 1st, that the passage in the 
 tract Baba Bathra says nothing on this head, but only that from 
 the Pirke Aboth ; 2dly, Even this latter says only that Simon be- 
 longed to the residue of the Great Synagogue (nD^^ *'Uj2^^ ^"^'^^^?D 
 HT'l'T^n)' ^"^^ ^^^^ intimates that in his time it was ceasing to 
 exist; and, in fine, we must look at this matter in the light of 
 Jewish opinions, from which alone the tradition can be rightly esti- 
 mated, and according to them Simon was invariably regarded as the 
 successor of Ezra,3 so that the distance between the two could not 
 be so great as is commonly supposed. 
 
 With this Talmudic tradition other testimonies concur. We 
 specify especially the account in the fourth Book of Esdras of the 
 miraculous restoration of the Canon. Ninety-four books, seventy 
 esoteric, and twenty-four exoteric, were by inspiration communicated 
 to Ezra that he might convey them to the people ; ch. xiv. Now 
 the Talmud reckons also twenty-four books in the Old Testament 
 (Baba Bathra, fol. 14, 2), and we have here, therefore, certainly 
 one of the many Jewish elements which in general form the basis 
 of this writing.'' Only the Jewish tradition is here presented in an 
 
 1 Comp. Beitholdt Einl. I. 66 ff., especially s. 86 ; Jahn I. 130; Parenu, Lib. cit. p. 
 54 Comp. also Jost Gescb. d. Israeliteu III. 43 ; Hartmann, p. 120 If. 
 
 2 Comp. Eau De Synag. Mag., Utrecht 1726; Aurivillius lib. cit.; J. D. Micbaelis, 
 Orient. Bibl. II. 6, XX. 43 ; De Wette, loc. cit. 
 
 3Comp. Otbonis Histor. Doctor. Misnic, p. 13 sq,, and his Lex. Rabbin. Pliilol., 
 p. 696, 
 
 4 So according to the Arabic and Ethiopic versions. The Lat. version speaks of 
 5;04 •writings ; 134 exoteric and 70 esoteric. The latter is nothing but a later exagge- 
 ration. 
 
 6 Comp. Lnecke, Verswch ein. vollst. Einleitungin d. Offeubarung Johannis s. 102, ff. 
 
HISTOHY OF THK CANON. 41 
 
 apocalyptic form, and is consequently more dressed up. But how 
 could it have more naturally arisen than in this way, that already a 
 decided Jewish tradition was in circulation which intimated the 
 services of Ezra in collecting the Canon ? — a conclusion which he- 
 comes still more certain when we compare the statement of Irenseus, 
 adv. Haer 3, 25 (Euseb. H. E. v. 8), where he says Ezra only 
 T0U9 TOiV irpo'yeyovorwv irpo^jjTMV 'jrdvra<i avard^aardac 
 \6yov<i, Koi uiroKaraarrjCTaL tS \a& ttjv Sia M(ov(Teo)<; vo/xo6e- 
 arlav, ascribing to him thus the mere arrangement of the Canon. ^ 
 In this way it is clear that the Talmudic tradition above adduced 
 is anything rather than a modern rabbinical fancy, since it is found 
 (and that in an extended form) in a book written probably in the 
 end of the first century of the Christian era.^ It may serve as a 
 specimen of the arbitrary criticism of De Wette that he pronounces 
 of this testimony from the fourth Book of Esdras that "it hardly 
 deserves notice." (Einl. s. 17.) 
 
 We approach next a witness of still higher importance in point 
 of age, one who lived before Christ — that, namely, of the second 
 book of the Maccabees, ch. ii. ver. 13." Tbis passage comes at the 
 close of a longer one, in which, after some narratives concerning 
 him, the services of Jeremiah in preserving the Ark of the Covenant 
 containing the Law, &c., are magnified (evplcrKerai ev ral<i diro- 
 rypa(f)al<;.) Probably this refers to the apocryphal legends concern- 
 iug Jeremiah, of which there certainly were many in Egypt, as 
 even the condition of the Alexandrian version of his prophecies 
 shows. The Egyptian author of this writing doubtless was in 
 possession of such legends current there. After this follows" a new 
 citation : i^rjyovvro Se koi ev Tal<; dvaypacpaU koi ev Toi<i 
 
 1 Other Fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Strora. I. 342, 392; Tertullian, De cultu 
 femin. i. 3, &c; see Fabricius Cod. Pseudepigr. Vet. Test. I. 1157 sq.) hold by the 
 dressing up of the fourth book of Ezra, which more accords witli their taste. 
 
 2 See Luecke Lib. cit.,§ lll.flF. 
 
 3 This passage has been conjured into a different meaning by Berlholdt, s. 76, Bleek, 
 s. 201, and Hengstenberg, s. 24i, but not as it appears to me its own meaning. I pre- 
 sent my view here rather on its positive side by which its opposition to others may be 
 sufficiently discerned. 
 
 * The same thing is proved by the complaints of Justin Martyr, of the corruptions of 
 the Text of Jeremiah by the Jews (e. grr. Dial, cum Tryph. p, 178), on which Fabricius 
 (1. cit. p. 1108) rightly sajs: credibilius est, codices Graecae versionis /aw privalo 
 quorundam Apocryphis se delectantium studio interpolator, jam librariorum oscitantia 
 mancos fraud i beato Martyri fuisse. 
 
42 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 vTTOfivrjfxaTia-fxoi'i rot? Kara top Neefiiav. If I do not misap- 
 prehend this passage, it refers to that writing, of which unhappily 
 we retain only a single fragment, the third book of Ezra. This 
 begins with Annals (dvaypacpal'^), but even at its beginning we 
 have it imperfect; and after that it contains Memoirs (vTro/ii/T;- 
 fjuaria^oi) concerning Ezra and Nehemiah. Unhappily, however, 
 there is a lacuna just where it begins with Nehemiah, though 
 both from the close of the writing itself, and from what Josephus 
 says concerning Nehemiah, it is quite clear that several things were 
 therein narrated of him. That this Apocryphal writing also might 
 contain similar additions concerning Nehemiah and his character, 
 is abundantly proved by the legends on Zerubbabel (ch. iii. 4). This 
 book also is fundamentally nothing more than an Alexandrian 
 pendant to the canonical writings of Ezra and Nehemiah. We 
 may thus with certainty conclude from the citation before us, that 
 what the passage concerning Nehemiah states, was diffused among 
 the Alexandrian Jews as a tradition. It is as follows : — 0)9 Kara- 
 ^aX\.6/jL6Vo<i ^o^\i,o6/]Ki]v, iTTLcrvvrj'ya'ye ra irepl tmv /3acnXeo)V 
 Koi '7rpo(f)r]T(cv Kal to. tov Aavt8 koX €7riaroka<; ^aaiXecov nrepi 
 avaOrjfjbaTwv. A parallel is here run between Jeremiah and Nehe- 
 miah to the effect, that as the former had preserved the Law, so had 
 the latter the other scriptures, which he had combined into one 
 sacred collection} In this passage we have only the Alexandrian 
 appellations of the parts of the Old Testament: — the historical 
 books are indubitably pointed at under the words ra irepl rwy 
 /Baaikicov (comp, to. laropov/jieva nrepl r&v j3a<xiKecov, 3 Esd- 1, 
 31), and under them as a heading, named a potiori, we may 
 well suppose also Joshua and Judges to be included. The title 
 prophets is also clear. It is further evident, if we take into con- 
 sideration the later custom of naming the Hogiographa from parti- 
 cular portions of them (comp. § 11), why in this passage only two 
 parts of them, ^^ pars pro toto, should be named. To the writer 
 these were of special interest ; the Psalms because of their common 
 liturgical use in the age of Nehemiah, and the letters of the heathen 
 kings in reference to the consecration-offerings, as an evidence of 
 favours which the Egyptian Jews, through their iaxer Syncretism, 
 
 1 This is the proper force of the word /3i/3\io6/i/cii in the later hellenisiieo-jewish and 
 Christian usage of it. Comp. Thilo cod. apoc.N.Ti. I. p. 790; also Wolf Prolegg. ad. 
 Homer, p. 145. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 48 
 
 especially sought. Thus the closing of the Canon was placed by 
 the Alexandrian Jews at the date we have already fixed ; and they 
 ascribed a share in that work to Nehemiah, whom the Tradition of 
 the Palestinian Jews had numbered among the member of the Great 
 Synagogue. 
 
 We proceed now to examine the Canonical Scriptures themselves, 
 that we may ascertain what may be gathered from them bearing on 
 our present subject. Let us consider first the Books of Chronicles, 
 assuming (what may be regarded as an established result^) that 
 Ezra was their author. Now the peculiar character of these books 
 indicates on the part of their compiler that he had to do with the 
 collecting of the Canon. As respects their general character, the 
 Chronicles are purely such a compilaliou from, or rather edition of 
 original materials, as would be required for the completing of the 
 Canon (comp. § 7) ; they show how much attention had been paid 
 to the collecting of genealogies, a very important class of documents 
 under the Theocracy (comp. Ezra ii. 63, 64, 1 Chr. i. 9) ; and also 
 to the working up of the other annals and materials to one whole. 
 Of the same kind of activity the books of Ezra and Nehemiah bear 
 witness in their numerous genealogical registers, and their incor- 
 porated documents. Is not this proof sufficient that the author 
 of these books had been much occupied in collecting and combin- 
 ing into one canonical whole the scattered sacred writings ? Is it 
 not by this alone that the later historical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment can be fully explained ? And if such industry on the part of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah was exercised on particular parts of the Old 
 Testament, it must so much the more have been exercised on the 
 combining of them into one whole. 
 
 To this we must add the evidence accruing from Ezra's own his- 
 tory. After the priest had in the most zealous manner devoted 
 himself to the restoration of the ritual and the ancient theocratic 
 arrangements, he for thirteen years disappears from the history. He 
 next comes forward after the return of Nehemiah, and that, at the 
 request of the people, with the Thorah in his hand, and accom- 
 panied by wise men (o'^i'^l^rT)' ^^^^" explained the same to the 
 people. In the course of several days the whole Law was read to 
 
 1 See Keil. lib. cit. § 144, fif., though his proofs nilrait of being strengthened; comii. 
 Movers Krit. Uuters, iib. d. bib. Chron. § 14, ff. 
 
 3 
 
44 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 the people in the most solemn manner, and at no festival might 
 the reading of the Holy Book be omitted, nay, the people bound 
 themselves most solemnly to the reception and retention of this 
 covenant (Neh. viii. 10.) The special weight which is here at- 
 tached to the reading of the Law, and the manner in which an 
 especial desire, after it was shown, coupled with the lengthened 
 retirement (as it appears) from public activity of Ezra, render it 
 extremely probable that he had been busied during the interval 
 with the copying and editing of the Thorah. In connection with 
 this also, he appears (as in the book of Ezra) in his function as 
 Scribe ("^Qbri' 7/3a/t/i.aTeu9) Neh. viii. 1, and this still further 
 justifies us in regarding him as having up to this time been engaged 
 in such occupations.2 As moreover, in the reading of the Law he 
 was faithfully supported by the Levites, the wise men (Neh. viii. 9), 
 he had probably their assistance also in the previous arrangement 
 of the matter, for the priests appear in the narrative as already 
 skilfully familiar with the Thorah — nor is such a supposition other 
 than natural, considering that Ezra was himself a priest. 
 
 We cannot suppose, however, that it was_with the Thorah alone 
 that Ezra had thus occupied himself; the time is sufficiently long 
 to admit of our including also the collecting and copying of the 
 other Scriptures by him. Ezra describes himself as -^g^ *^Dbn 
 
 ^«^tD^-^i^ rpm nin^-n'i!J?:5 mi Ez. vii. ll, an expression 
 which can hardly refer to the Mo&nic Law alone, and from the 
 context we may infer the same, for it was on account of this 
 his quality that the king Artaxerxes intrusted to him the edict, 
 well knowing that he placed it in the hands of a man to 
 whom all documents affecting Israel were of interest. Further 
 the efforts of Ezra and his contemporaries were directed not 
 merely to the perfect restitution of the Law, but to that also 
 of the entire ritual, and that not in any arbitrary way, but 
 after the plan of David and Solomon (Neh. xii. 44, fF) ; and 
 for this not only the historical books would be required, but 
 also the Psalms. These books being regarded as furnishincr 
 the standard of the new religious organization, it cannot be 
 
 1 See on this Kleinert, in the Dorptsche Beitrage I., 120, ff., especially 287, ff., Keil 
 lib. cit., § 104, ff. 
 
 2 A similar predicate used by the Arabians was ( ^j'LSsSl, Ihit tniter ; see e. gr. 
 
 Abiilfeda, Ann. in., p. 232,233, Adier. 
 
 3 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 45 
 
 supposed that they would uotbe combined into one whole, and this 
 could be the more easily done as each family of singers had been 
 kept up from the earliest times, and consequently had preserved 
 both documents and songs. In fine, it appears to me that a pas- 
 sage in one of the later prophets attests this combining of the 
 Scriptures into one whole, viz., Zechar. vii. 12, which is the less 
 surprising since this prophet was himself of the sacerdotal order ; 
 he combines riy\r\Tl ^"t^ 1^_^ im^l ^''^ vh^ "ItT^ D^^ll'in 
 Q'^2t!?t^"^n D'^^5"'13n- This combination in this special manner 
 and the appeal to it appear to me not easily explainable unless 
 already when the Prophet wrote this, a beginning at least had 
 been made of joining the Thcrah and the Nebiim, and this the 
 more that the subject relates to an ecclesiastical solemnity, and that 
 consequently it was necessary to refer to a known and general 
 standard. 
 
 The result of our enquiry is, therefore, that the Jewish tradi- 
 tion, viewed in its fundamental truth, is in pleasing harmony 
 with historical evidence, viz., that the collection of the sacred 
 writings was completed by Ezra in company with other eminent 
 men of his time. 
 
 § 10. MOTIVES FOR THE RECEPTION OF ANY BOOK INTO THE 
 CANON. 
 
 On this point a double view may be taken. The one is that the 
 collector of the Canon had a secular design, intending only to form 
 a collection of national writings. In this light one may compare 
 the preparation of the Canon with the collection of the classics 
 made by the Alexandrian critics Aristarchus and Aristophanes 
 (Quinct. Inst. Or. X. 1) and thus the work of Ezra and his col- 
 leagues may be represented as prompted by similar scientific and 
 patriotic zeal. The other view proceeds upon the peculiar rela- 
 tions in which the authors of the books stood to God ; these are 
 not regarded as books coming into existence in the ordinary human 
 mode, but as, what they in many places declare themselves to be, 
 inspired by the spirit of God,^ and written under the special gui- 
 dance of this unerring leader. 
 
 1 Comi). Jahn I. 95, Nor must this be taken as simply a mythical mode of representa- 
 
46 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 These two views are so strictly opposite, and the light in which 
 they respectively represent the author of the Canon is so very different, 
 that it is in vain to overlook or deny the fact.i The latter view is 
 that which the Church has in all times held concerning the com- 
 pilers of our canonical hooks ; the former is properly a conjecture 
 of the school of Semler,^ hy which they have sought hy a more 
 convenient way to get rid of certaiu to them troublesome and, 
 as they chose to consider them, "immoral" writings of the Old 
 Testament. This notion has in recent times more or less furtively 
 lain at the basis of so many erroneous opinions and tendencies, 
 that it well deserves a fuller exposure. 
 
 It will httle serve the purpose of the opponents of the ancient 
 view to point to the fact that all the documents composing the ca- 
 nonical literature are not of a religious character, hut that some are 
 " works of history and wit," which it was thought desirable to pre- 
 serve from oblivion. The question here is not what men, impelled 
 by neological prejudices, may esteem the writings of the old cove- 
 nant : it is a question of a purely historical kind, and being such, 
 their opinion will be found capable of hardly any sort of justification. 
 Certainly not in the general : for nowhere do we find the belief 
 which pervaded the ancient world that each people had its own 
 men who were deemed worthy by the Deity of special revelations.^ 
 more fair and pure than among that people which alone could 
 boast that the most precious treasures of divine wisdom, the \6^La 
 Tov ©eov had been committed to it (Rom. iii. 2.). As little in par- 
 ticulars ; for if we compare the writings produced by Jews imme- 
 diately after the closing of the Canon, we discover the most de- 
 cided testimonies in favour of the inspiration of the authors of the 
 canonical writings. Nothing can be more unhistorical than the 
 notion of some, that this was a theory which arose and took form 
 all at once, for it is one supported most decidedly by the older as- 
 sertions of the sacred books. Let us look at a few of these no less 
 
 tion and accommodation (Bauer Heb. Mj'thol. i. 23) ; but as throughout real and in 
 the directest sense. See Pareau De Mythica S. Cod. interpret, p. 267, sq., ed. Sec. 
 
 1 As it is by De Wette however; Einl. s. 21, fl". 
 
 2 It has been principally developed by Corrodi.Beleuchtung des Jiid. u. Chr. Kanons, 
 § 1. 2. Comp. Bauer, Einl. § 27. 
 
 3 Vetus opinio est, jam usque ab heroicis ducta temporibus eaque et populi Romani 
 et omnium gentium firmata consensu, versari quandam inter homines divinationem. 
 Cicero, de divin. i. 1. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 47 
 
 decided than uuiversally concurrent testimonies, and all uncertainty 
 will disappear as to the conviction that it was the fact of inspiration 
 upon which depended the reception of some books into the Canon, 
 and the exclusion from it of others. 
 
 God, we are assured by the weightiest in this respect of these 
 witnesses, is the Author of his Law, by which he has established a 
 Covenant with his people (2 Mace. vi. 23 ; Sir. xxviii. 7) ; Moses 
 is a holy prophet (Wisd. xi. 1); his law is divine, contains all 
 worth knowing, is the fountain of life, is from eternity to eternity 
 (Sir. xvii. 12 ; xxiv. 23, ff. ; Wisd. xviii. 4 ; Bar. iii. 12, flf. ; Tob. 
 i. G.) By the study of the Law and of the Prophets a man becomes 
 wise (Sir. xxiv. 18, ff. ; xxxix. 1, ff.), and for such a blessing one 
 must part with all, even hfe itself (1 Mace. ii. 50 — 70.). The an- 
 cient prophets are alone trustworthy in their predictions (nna-Tol 
 opaa-eco^), (Sir. xlvi. 15, xlviii. 22). The Canon is not a collec- 
 tion of ordinary writings ; it is composed of holy books (1 Mace, 
 xii. 9; 2 Mace. vi. 23). The men of God and the Prophets ob- 
 tained the highest wisdom (Wisd. vii. 27) ; their writings are divine 
 dictations {irpoard'^ixaja toO Qeov. Bar. iv. 1). 
 
 In the same way Philo and Josephus speak of the Old Testa- 
 ment writings. With them Moses is invariably the first of the 
 prophets {ap')(L'Trpo<^rjrri<i) , and the other sacred writers are his dis- 
 ciples and friends (Mcovo-eco'? iraipoi), though their mode of repre- 
 sentation inclines to the Alexandrian, the heathen Syncretism, &c. 
 (De Wette, Bibl. Dogmatik. § 144 ; Baumgarten-Crusius, Bibl. 
 Theol. s. 105, 106), Josephus frequently calls the bibhcal books 
 divine (cont. Ap. i. 8 ; Antiqq. XII. ii. 14), and expressly asserts 
 their divine origin, which he describes as a feeling deeply engraven 
 from his earliest childhood on the mind of every Jew (cont. Ap. i 8. 
 Comp. Bretschneider Capit. Theol. Jud. e Flavii Josephi scriptis 
 collecta, p. 9. sq.). 
 
 §11. DIVISION OF THE CANON INTO THREE CLASSES OF BOOKS. 
 
 The threefold division of the sacred books is found even in the 
 book of Sirach (comp. i 9), as well as in the New Testament, and 
 in Philo (comp. § 14); very frequently also in the Talmud under 
 the names by which they are commonly known with us H"^"!]!, 
 Q'^^")]-^^'^, D'1^'^12 (comp. e. gr. Baba Bathra, fol. 13, 2. Berachoth, 
 
is HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 fol. 5. 1. Maccoth, fol. 10, 2. See SurenhusiusBi/9X,09 KaraX- 
 Xa7^9, p. 49 ). The first question that may be raised in respect of 
 this is whether the position of the books in each of these canonical 
 divisions was the same from the time of tbe formation of the Canon 
 as it is at present, or whether some alteration was effected by the 
 Jews in later times. The latter opinion is espoused by Storr (ueb. 
 die iilteste Eintlieil. der Blicher d. alten Bundes, in Paulus N. 
 Repert. Th. ii. 225, ff.), who leans in support of it chiefly on the 
 passage in Josephus, cont. Ap. i. 8, according to which only the 
 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles are found in the third 
 class. But this division of Josephus cannot be regarded as of 
 weight in this question, because he is discoursing of the arrange- 
 ment of the historical books, or such as were of importance in a 
 historical point of view (hence : ol /xera Mcovarjv Trpo^f^rai ra 
 KUT avTov^ TT pa')(^9 evra avveypaylrav ev rpicrl Koi Ssku /3i^- 
 Xtoa.) This division, moreover, being in the manner of Philo, 
 bespeaks an Alexandrian source, and is quite in keeping with 
 the license which the Jews of that part allowed themselves, as 
 contrasted with the stationary character of those of Palestine.^ 
 
 It is to be observed further, that whilst it is easy to account for 
 the rise of this latter variety, according to which the books are 
 arranged according to their contents, out of the other, the converse 
 can hardly be done. Hence the division of the Talmud, and the 
 classification of the books found in it, certainly originated from the 
 earliest time of the collection, and with the authors of that them- 
 selves. This Sirach also attests since even he knew a threefold 
 division, though we cannot tell particularly what books he reckoned 
 in each class. 
 
 We have now to investigate the reaso?i and jyrinciple of this 
 division ; and first we shall consider the names which have been 
 given to these parts respectively, and then the writings themselves, 
 of which they are composed. Both points thoroughly examined 
 will lead us to the same results. 
 
 1. It is easy to understand why the Pentateuch, the Thorah, 
 as the foundation of all the other parts of the Canon, should be 
 regarded as one self-sustained whole. The Pentateuch itself sets 
 up the distinction between its author, and all other men privileged 
 
 1 I am coufirmed in this by the uame ufxuoi given at a later period to this class. See 
 mora on this afterwards. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 49 
 
 with divine revelations so clearly, that it cannot be mistaken. 
 Moses is the most distinguished, the most highly favoured of all 
 Israelites. Whilst no man was ever permitted to see the face of 
 Jehovah, but only his back (Exod. xxxiii. 18 — 28),^ Moses saw 
 the Lord face to face and spoke with him as a man with his friend 
 (Exod. xxxiii. 1 1 ; Deut. v. 4, 5). He differs from all other 
 prophets also in this, that whilst they only had visions, Jehovah 
 spoke to him mouth to mouth (Deut. xii. C — 8 ; xxxiv. 10). 
 Comp. Witsius, De Privilegiis Mosis, in his Miscellanea Sacra i- 
 41, seq. 
 
 Whilst the Pentateuch is thus sufficiently distinguished from all 
 the other sacred books by the peculiar eminence of its author, and 
 by its significant relation to the Theocracy, it is not so easy to ex- 
 plain the meaning of the titles of the other two parts — Prophets 
 and Writings. We must in the outset here endeavour to ascertain 
 precisely the idea embraced in Scripture by the word ^1^2- 
 
 The most ancient passage in which this vrord occurs is Gen. 
 XX. 7 ; comp. Ps. cv. 15. Here Abraham is called by this terra, 
 because the Patriarch united in his own person the royal, the 
 priestly, and the prophetic offices.^ In the time of Moses we find 
 among the Israelites prophets and prophetesses (Numb. xi. 25 ; 
 xii. 6, 8) ; but it was chiefly with reference to the far off, and the far- 
 
 ^ The face of God is the expression of His Essence ; the back of God the partial re- 
 velation of this Essence, so far as it is conceded to frail sinful man. Comp. Tholuck 
 Comment. Z. Jolian. s. 37, 38, Z. Rom. Br. s. 358, 2te Aufl. The truth of this con- 
 ception was guessed even by the heathen ; of the appearance of Venus in human 
 form Virgil says, as she manifested her deity, " «i;tr<e»s rosea cervice refiilsit." Aeu. 
 i. 402. Of Theophanies there went abroad the common saying, yakiTrol Si Qtol (paLvia- 
 dai ii/apyeh, Hom. 11. xx. 131. When in the passage cited from Exodus God refuses 
 to show Moses his face, this is said in reference to the desire of Moses (ver. 18), which 
 was unseasonable; he should believe without having seen what he desired; he was 
 bound to submit to the divine revelation without any reserve, to yield it unconditional 
 belief in the absolute sense. In this way the passage may be explained in perfect har- 
 mony with that referred to in the text. 
 
 2 For certainly those recent interpreters (Vater, Roseumiiller, Schumann) are in 
 error, who stretch out the meaning of the word s^33 in this passage, so as to make it 
 signify confidant, friend of God. This is against the etymology, for the Arabic (j^j 
 signifies properly proferre, producere, and thence is applied to discourses, especially of 
 religious and mystic character, Coran. Sur. iii, 13, Hiukelm. Achmed Ibn. Arabscli. 
 Vit. Tim. I. p. 8, Manger. It is against the original meaning of s^S3 found even in 
 the Pentateuch itself, y\z., interpres rerum diiinarum, comp. Exod. vii. 1, 2. Especially 
 is it against the constant usage of the word. Abraham enjoyed many prophetic promises, 
 which were reserved for coming generations, and to this plainly reference is had in the 
 application to him of this term. Comp. Jahn Einl. 11. 380. 
 D 
 
50 
 
 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 tliest off future, tliat the founder of the Theocracy set forth so clearly 
 the difference between true and false prophets (Deut. xiii. 2, ff. ; 
 xviii. 20, ff,), and announced Him who should fulfil all prophecy, 
 and pre-eminently deserve the name of prophet (Deut. xviii. 15 — 
 18.). — But the period of Samuel and the earliest kings is the pro- 
 per period of the prophets. With it began a new religious life, a 
 season of efSorescence for the Theocracy, and Samuel especially 
 stood forth as the Reformer of the ancient Church. But with these 
 excellent efforts, sanctioned by Jehovah, there came to light a cer- 
 tain schism — new utterances of spiritual strength, and of a higher 
 divine life. The highest spiritual and temporal power which had 
 been joined in Eli, were separated in the case of Samuel, who was 
 never High Priest (Winer Reallex. s. 001, first edit.), and may 
 rather be regarded as organizing a strenuous opposition to the 
 degenerate priesthood. As his first prophetic message was one of 
 evil to the High Priest, so his whole life was a battle against the 
 sins of the Levites. The youth Samuel saw a time in which there 
 was a dearth of the word of the Lord, and but little prophesying 
 (1 Sam. iii. 1) ; the man Samuel saw around him a company of 
 prophets, who in union with him were wholly consecrated to the 
 Lord's service, sang His praises, participated His revelations, 
 and made known His name to the rebellious people. 
 
 There thus appears from the time of Samuel a new class of 
 men in Israel, whose place in the Theocracy Moses had already 
 pointed out, and whose rights he had fixed (comp. J. D. Michaelis, 
 Mosaisch. Recht. i. § 30). There was resumed also the ancient 
 Theocratic name ^^^3, which had almost become obsolete, and in 
 
 • T 
 
 place of which the word ns^h' ^<^(^^'> ^lad come into use (1 Sam. ix. 
 9). This latter name is highly characteristic of a time when pro- 
 phesying was not common, and v.'hen from time to time the Spirit 
 of God impelled this or the other individual to prophesy. As soon 
 as a regular corps of prophets was formed, their oflBcial name was 
 at the same time restored to them. 
 
 The gradual formation of this usage in the language may be ob- 
 served in the historical books of the Old Testament. Samuel re- 
 tains always the name which was given in his time before the more 
 general reception of the word t^^^2' "^^2- Ilb^hil (comp. 1 Chr. ix. 
 22, 20, 28, &c.). At the same time, however, those who were pro- 
 perly enrolled in the prophetic body are by the name alone appro- 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 51 
 
 priate to their raiik, Q'^i^'i^i' distinguished from the simple Qij^"^ 
 or Q'lfn Seers. The former, relinquishing every secular avocation, 
 devoted himself exclusively to the work of an ambassador from God 
 to Israel, whose office it was to guide the people of the Covenant 
 by his living word. It is true that the grace of God sometimes 
 selected persons besides them to receive revelations, nay, to be the 
 bearers of the same prophetic promises and threatenings as the 
 others ; but these remained in such spheres and occupations as they 
 had otherwise been placed in by Providence, and prophesied with- 
 out being invested with the prophetic office. Thus, e. c/r. we have 
 prophecies of David in the Psalms quite like those of the prophets, 
 as the Messianic psalms of David attest, without David's being on 
 that account called anywhere Nahi, which indeed, so long as he 
 was King of Israel, he could not be. This latter class was with 
 great propriety called Seers, because the word X'W'n o^' n^"1 ^^^^ 
 
 T T T X 
 
 respect to receiving special revelation as an act^ not as a ftinction? 
 We shall cite a few passages which will render this distinction in- 
 dubitable. In 2 Kings xvii. 13 it is said, " God hath given a 
 witness in Israel by means of all his prophets, every seer" {^"s^ 
 T\irr^'2 Vi^''13~^3)- 1'1^6 Prophets, as the public teachers of 
 the people, bore testimony in Israel, but there were also private 
 persons who gave witness to the divine grace of which they testi- 
 fied. It is by design, therefore, that this latter class is described 
 more indefinitely (ntn~^!2 every sort of seer) than the 'Tii<^*'n3~72) 
 (all his prophets) ; it embraced a greater variety of persons. We 
 may couple with this the passage 1 Sam. xxviii. G : " Saul in- 
 quired of God, but he answered him not either in dreams, or by 
 the Urim or hy prophets." The three means by which knowledge 
 of the future might be supernaturally obtained are here specified : 
 
 1 Comp. e.gr. Mie. i. 1; Is. i.l; Amos i. l,aualogous to the New Testament, airoKa- 
 \u\j/iu 'ix^^v, 1 Cor. xiv. 26. 
 
 2 This was denoted already by (he form of s^35 ; comp. T^ps, overseer, ifSv}, prince; 
 Ewald. Gr. s. 2.3-4:. Also the verb s::3 stands iu the sense of aclincj as a prophet, exercis- 
 ing the function of a prophet; comp. 1 Sam. x. 11; xix. 20; 1 Chr. xxv. 2, 3, as not 
 onJy the context, but the idea of the Piel-form requires. The rendering of recent 
 writers (Gesenius, Winer, &c.), "cecinit laudes Dei, hymuos," is quite a mistake. 
 
 3 We have translated according to the Chetibh, for tlie Keri is nothing but a gloss 
 that hardly needs refuting. The Masorites omitted the pronoun, because rrrn has no 
 suffix, and they eitlier knew not or omitted to observe the distinction between the two 
 ideas. 
 
 2 D 
 
62 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 it might be by means of private persons, and that as here men- 
 tioned in dreams {pars pro toto, as that especially to be considered 
 here), such as Saul himself, for instance, might have had ; or by 
 means of the High Priest or the Prophets, both of whom are clearly 
 distinguished from the first class. Of weight also is Is. xxix. 10 : 
 "Jehovah hath poured out upon you the spirit of a deep sleep, 
 and he hath closed your eyes the prophets, and veiled your 
 heads the seers." The Prophet had evidently two classes of per- 
 sons here in view who served as leaders of the people : the pro- 
 phets properly so called, and the seers, to the latter of whom the 
 title heads of the people might with much propriety be applied, in- 
 asmuch as they were usually persons of eminent rank in the Theo- 
 cracy — kings or priests. i 
 
 In the books of Chronicles we find the distinction between the 
 prophets and seers strictly preserved. Thus invariably in the ci- 
 tation of the chroniclers: Nathan the prophet and Gad the seer 
 (1 Chr. xxix. 29) ; Nathan the propliet and Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 
 xii. 15) ; Isaiah, the son of Amoz the propliet (1 Chr. xxvi. 22). 
 It deserves to be observed that we have to do here with very pre- 
 cise citations, in which the official title of each is always exactly 
 referred to, as e. gr. the history of David the king (1 Chr. xxix. 
 29.) Further the constant retention of this usage enables us to 
 judge better of two passages which at first sight appear to present 
 an exception to it. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 11, it is said : " Gad the 
 prophet, the seer of David." But in this passage the appellation 
 i^eer in apposition to " the prophet" plainly serves for the closer 
 determination of this conception in the sense " Gad, who discharged 
 the functions of a prophet in the capacity of a seer," i.e. properly 
 he was not a prophet, but rather a seer.' In the parallel passage in 
 
 1 We are consequently far from acceding to tbe opinion of Koppe, Geseuius, aud 
 Hitzig, tbat tbe words a'S"'a:n rs and ai")-;- rs are to be beld as glosses, on tbe ground 
 tbat these interpreters bave not entered into tbe finer discrimination of tbe conceptions. 
 Strangest of all is it vvliere Hitzig describes tbese glosses as "wonderful," and as an 
 erro«eous explanation of wbat precedes ! There lies in tbese words a peculiar power 
 and emphasis wiiich ought never to have been overlooked. Isaiah also is accustomed 
 to explain more closely the figure ; comp. i. 5—7, 2 J, 23, 25, 26 ; iii. 2, 3, 14, 15; x. 33 ; 
 xiv. 13, 14; xxiv. 6, &c. Comp. also Is. xxx. 10, where this distinction is observed, and 
 where no interpolation can be suspected ; only here we have tbe expression o'^s'i accord- 
 ing to its ancient usage in place of n"iS"'33, as Poetry is fond of such archaisms. 
 
 2 In tbe same way must we understand the passage 2 Cbr. xxxiii. 18, where mention is 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 63 
 
 Chronicles we read simply " Gad the seer," 1 Chr. xxi. 9. The 
 other passage occurs in 2 Chr. xiii 22 compared with 2 Chr. xii. 
 1 5, where a certain Iddo is mentioned in the one case as a prophet, in 
 the other as a seer. But to me it appears to admit of no question 
 that two different persons are referred to in these passages. For 
 1 . The name Iddo was common among the Hebrews, so that in 
 such a similarity there is nothing strange ; 2. The acta ascribed 
 to the two Iddos are different, which gives room to suppose a dif- 
 ference in those by whom they were done ; the one is called i-^^'^ 
 •^-ryj^ the other '^•^j; tl?"^'l?:2- ^- The Chronicler himself appears to 
 be desirous of rendering this distinction apparent by the manner in 
 which he expresses himself in the passage latest written of the two, 
 xiii. 22 : y:\'^ ^'^ISH tT'Tl^^D, 5 ^^liilst usually he places the predi- 
 cate after the noun, he here prefixes it ; an irregularity which can 
 only be accounted for by a reference to the former passage, inas- 
 much as by the prominency thus given to the predicate, the con- 
 founding of the two Iddos would be obviated. 
 
 Of much importance for our object is the circumstance, that in 
 the books of Chronicles this distinction is so firmly maintained ; 
 in consequence of their composition by Ezra (which here we pro- 
 visionally assume), this circumstance suggests an evidence not to 
 be overlooked, that the author of the Canonical collection must 
 also have had regard to this distinction. What serves to confirm 
 this view is that on comparing the expressions of later Jewish 
 writers, it appears that to them this distinction had already become 
 obsolete, and hence we may with greater justice regard it as one of 
 great antiquity. Comp. the Targum on Ps. ciii. i,^ and the Talmud, 
 Tr. Sota, fol. 48, 2: "Who are the first prophets (Dij^^'insn) ^ 
 R. Hunna answered, David, Samuel, Solomon."" The vague use of 
 the word Trpoc/^/TTy? by the Hellenists is also well known. Thus the 
 
 made of seers who spoke to Manasseb in the name of Jehovah. We do not believe vpith 
 Kleinert (Ueb. d. Aechth. d. Jes. 1. 82, 86, 100) that it is of prophets in the proper sense 
 of the term that this is said, but as Gad lived in the court of David, and had probably 
 there his proper function, and yet had divine revelations so also did these men at the 
 court of Manasseh. 
 
 1 [The reference here is to the inscription prefixed by the Targumist to the 103d, 
 Psalin, viz., nsiasa ■^lasrs -;i" T' '>'J, hy the hand of David spoken in prophecy. — Tk.] 
 
 2 Hence Hengstenberg is not altogether correct, when in reply to Bertholdt he says 
 that the word ■'snJ had never amongst the .lews of Palestine a more extended sense 
 like the helleuistic irpocpriT'i^- 
 
64 HISTORY OF thp: canon. 
 
 editors of the Canon in their department retained a distinction which 
 they found already sanctioned by the usage of the Old Testament, 
 that of Nebiim and Not-nebiim, and so after the Pentateuch there 
 had to be two classes of books. The latter they called Q'^^^ji^j 
 ■writings. Bertholdt's explanation of this word, that it means books 
 newly introduced into the Canon (Einl. I. 81 ), is utterly groundless 
 and far-fetched. Paulns (Comment, lib. d. N. T. III. 936), and 
 after him Augusti (p. 61) derive the word from the formula of cita- 
 tion n^nsri' ^^ ^^ tvritten, and understand by it writen authori- 
 ties, as in contrast to oral tradition. But this contrast is too arti- 
 ficial, and besides we should require to include several other books 
 under this title, were this derivation of it correct. Others, espe- 
 cially the older theologians (Carpzov, Introd. I. 25), suppHed 1)o it 
 tripn ni"!^' ^^^6r the example of the Kabbins, whose explanation, 
 however, stood connected with an erroneous theory respecting the 
 Hagiographa in general (see following §.) The following appears 
 the most natural and legitimate method of explaining this word. 
 The wliole body of the sacred writings was called ^^]-\5, as they are 
 commonly called in the New Testament 7pa</)i?, comp. e. gr. Targ. 
 Hieros. ad Genes, xii. 42 ; BuxtorfjLex. Chald. Talmud, p. 1 107, 
 Each particular part of this whole is consequently ^iji3' 2^n3' '^^ 
 7e7pa/i/iei^oy (for which, however, we have also 'ypa(f)i] in the New 
 Testament, Luke xxiv. 46; John i. 46, xii. 16; &c.) — see the ex- 
 amples in Dopke's Hermeneutik d. N. T. Schriftst. § 60, ff. 
 Consequently the Q^^^jiS ^^'® certain definite portions of the 
 t^inS' ^°^ which they had no more distinctly descriptive name. 
 Thus as the ^^]-|3 was called the writing Kar i^o^^Tju, so these 
 
 X T T 
 
 parts of it were called writings, specially as distinguished from 
 profane books. Hence the strict translation <ypa(peia is by the 
 Church fathers used interchangeably with dyLoypa^a (see Suicer 
 Thes. sub. v.) We thus see how this name can be interchanged 
 with ra aWa and rd XoLird (in Sirach), and conforms itself to 
 them ; there is in this case an almost perfect accordance of both. 
 
 2. Let us now examine those writings which belong to the 
 Prophets and the Hagiographa, that we may see how far these 
 general inferences are borne out in the particular instances. Why 
 are certain historical books, such as Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and 
 Kings, classed among the former ? In the general it cannot be 
 
HISTORY 01-' THE CANON. 55 
 
 maintained tluit for tlie history, as such, a separate place was ne- 
 cessary ; this would only have been a very outward and formal 
 ground of distinction. What Schleiermacher has observed regard- 
 ing the division of the New Testament writings into historical and 
 didactic, apphes perfectly here ; " Of the historical books the doc- 
 trinal discourses of Christ and the Apostles form a very important 
 part, whilst the Epistles of the Apostles are, with few exceptions, 
 intelligible only so far as we read them in connection with histori- 
 cal circumstances eiiher formally detailed in them, or capable of 
 being deduced from them." (Der Christ. Glaube II. 357.) Such 
 a principle of division, therefore, could never appear satisfactory. 
 The collocation of these historical books is explainable only by a 
 reference to the Jewish traditions respecting them. " Tradition 
 says (Xoyo^ (peperai,)," we are told in Syn. Script. Sac. in Atha- 
 nasii 0pp. II. 73, " that they Vv'ere written at different times by pro- 
 phets." According to the Talmud (Baba Bathra, fol. li, 2 ; 15, 
 ] ) the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, were written by 
 Samuel, Nathan, and Jeremiah, According to the same autho- 
 rity also the greater part of the book of Joshua was written by 
 Joshua himself; but that Joshua, appearing in the earliest age of 
 Jewish history, and as the follower of Moses, was, in consequence 
 of this, viewed in the light of a prophet, is evident from Sir. xlvi. 
 1, where he is called Sid8o)(^o^ McovaP) iv rat'i 7Tpo(}ir]T€iai^ (comp. 
 Jos. Antiqq. V. 1 — 4.) 
 
 In this matter it is not the contents of the book, but only the 
 authorship of it, which was looked at. Hence, as on the one 
 hand the opinion which Ewald adduces (Jahrb. fiir wissenschaft. 
 Krit. 1831, No. 44), is incorrect, viz., that the historical books 
 were numbered with the prophetical writings because of the numer- 
 ous notices of the prophets contained in them ; so on the other, 
 the attempt to refute this opinion (^as Keil does, Lib. Cit. p. 79) 
 by asserting that Joshua and Judges relate nothing concerning 
 prophets, is quite untenable, as it may be historically disproved (see 
 Ewald, Leipz. Lit. Zeit. 1833, No. 188 s. 150 J). It is enough 
 [in reply to Ewald, to say] that the principle would in this way be 
 
 ^ lu this passage the name of Gad is added to these, whom the Scripture always re- 
 presents as only a seer — auother proof that the Talmudists, not understanding the 
 meaning of this division, allowed themselves arbitrary license in the matter of ad- 
 ditions. 
 
56 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 perverted, and a tradition misapprehended, which in this case can 
 be alone decisive. 
 
 Against the reception of the rest of the Prophets there is the 
 less that has the appearance of force to be said, since Jewish an- 
 tiquity viewed them as forming one collective whole arranged by 
 the Great Synagogue (see the passages by Voisin in Raymond 
 Martin's Pugio Pidei p. 95, sq. ; Waehner Autiqq. Heb. i. 41, 
 sq.). Even here, however, objections have been started. Thus 
 Amos is said not to have been professionally a Prophet ; but this 
 assertion rests on a very superficial view of the passage ch. vii. 
 14 (comp. Hengstenberg's Christologie III. s. 195, ff.). So also 
 it has been regarded as incompatible with this hypothesis that 
 Jonah should stand among the Prophets ; but why so ? seeing no 
 doubt can be entertained that he was regarded as a Prophet among 
 his own people, as he is expressly called J»^i;33 2 Kings xiv. 25. 
 It is irrelevant, therefore, on the part of Keil (p. 78, flf.) to lay 
 stress, for the refutation of this objection, on the symbolical mean- 
 ing of his prophecies for Israel, since it is not this, but the fact 
 just mentioned, which comes into question in reference to the 
 placing of his book among the Prophets. 
 
 If we loolc again at the Plagiographa, it is easy to discover the 
 reason why most of them have been separated from the other books. 
 The works of a David, an Asaph, a Solomon, could not be reck- 
 oned with the Prophets, as their authors were not prophets. The 
 same reason holds clearly with respect to historical books like 
 those of Ezra and Nehemiah, whose writers were not prophets, 
 an office of which Haggai and Zechariah are expressly described 
 as the holders in the book of Ezra (v. 1). So also the Chronicles 
 were, according to tradition, composed by Ezra.^ It is no objec- 
 tion to this, as Ewald supposes (Leipz. Lit. Zt. 1. c. s. 1502), that 
 this tradition may be false ; for this does not come into question 
 here ; all that we have to do with, is the fact that such was the 
 ancient Jewish tradition, and this is vouched for by the passage 
 
 1 Comp. Bava Batlira, fol. 15, 1, " Ezra wrote his book and the genealogies of the 
 Chronicles down to his own time."' The Talmudists would ascribe the composition of 
 Chronicles to Ezra, but the genealogies they assert to have been completed by Nehe- 
 miah; so has Jarchi already understood the passage. Others, as Buxtorf the Younger, 
 (De punct. antiq. et orig. p. 182) less rightly translate '• down to the word iV' 2 Chron. 
 xxi. 2, which has no rational sense. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 57 
 
 from the Talmud, as compared with the comments of the later 
 Kabhins, who no longer understood its meaning. Thus Jarchi 
 says (Comment, ad Chron. T. 1), "Ezra wrote the genealogies by 
 means of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi." 
 
 There are only two books whose position among the Hagiographa 
 it is difficult to account for, those of Daniel, and the Lamentations. 
 As respects the former, we must in the first place assert the high 
 antiquity of this allocation, and that partly on account of the testi- 
 mony of Jerome and the Talmud, which concurrently assign this 
 place to Daniel, and partly on account of the book of Sirach. The 
 author of the latter knew certainly, as it appears,^ this book ; though 
 he does not expressly cite it. In ch. xlviii. 49 he speaks of men 
 who had merited well of the Theocracy, and specifies, following 
 chronological order, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. He omits the 
 Minor Prophets,^ as by them the chronological order would have 
 been interrupted. As, then, on the one hand, he hereby ties him- 
 self to chronology, and on the other to the canonical arrangement, 
 the same seems to have prevailed in the case of Daniel. Were his 
 book among the Hagiographa, he could not be introduced here 
 chronologically, and in this case the omission is sufficiently ac- 
 counted for.^ But if this arrangement were so ancient, the point of 
 view from which the editor of the Canon regarded the other books 
 must also have prevailed in reference to this. This is sufficiently 
 explained by the personal condition of Daniel, who nowhere appears 
 as Nabi, which indeed he could not be in consequence of his offices, 
 entered upon in early life, at the courts of the rulers of Babylon 
 and Media. He was, therefore, like David and Solomon, merely 
 a nth' ^^^ what Drusius observes is perfectly correct: " peccant 
 qui Danielem ponunt in ordine prophetarura. Nam et David pro- 
 pheta fuit et tamen ab ipso Christo excluditur ex hoc ordine. 
 Moses prophetafuitprophetarum, non tamen ponitur in illo ordine" 
 (adnot. ad N. T. t. II. p. 58.) No objection can be urged 
 against this, from the fact that in the New Testament Daniel is 
 
 1 See my Comment, s. XL. fif. The strictures of De Wette, Einl. § 255, 4te Ausg., and 
 Eeilepenning Stud, nnd Krit. 1335, i. s. 179, have bad no effect iu couvincii)g me of tlie 
 erroneousness of tbe arguments there adduced, but rather the opposite. 
 
 2 For xlix. 10 is an interpolation, s. Bretscbueider, lib. Sir. Gr. p. 662. 
 
 3 Analogous, and yet erroneous, views on this are advanced by Stange in the Ana- 
 U'kten f. d. Stud. d. exeget. und system. Theol. I. 34. 
 
58 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 called a propltel, because according to the Hellenistic usage the 
 Nabi was not discriminated from the Hhoseh. It is also a mis- 
 take to infer from this that the respect due to Daniel, or to the re- 
 velations imparted to him, is less than the other prophets and their 
 writings.^ There is no difference in point of inspiration between 
 Prophets and Hagiographs (see the following section) ; the distinc- 
 tion lies exclusively in the theocratic standing of the writer. Ce- 
 lebrated as was the name of Solomon and his wisdom, he was 
 nevertheless not a prophet, and his writings are with perfect pro- 
 priety inserted among the Hagiographa. Comp. Carpzov, Introd. 
 ii. p. 230, " etsi recte habent, quae de munere docendi ac prophe- 
 tandi piihlico a Daniele non admiiii-^trato sunt allata, prophetica 
 tamen is dignitate exuendus non est nee postremo inter illos loco 
 collocandus. Nam et Christus ipse prophetae elogio eum ornat, 
 Matth. xxiv. 15, et nullo prorsus destitutus revelationis divinae ge- 
 nere, prophetarum reliqais paria per omnia fecit." 
 
 More difficult is the question why the Lamentations of Jeremiah 
 have been separated from his Prophecies. Hengstenberg (p. 27) 
 thinks that this is attributable to the predominating subjective cha- 
 racter of this book. But this is hardly satisfactory, as the same 
 might be said of the prophecies, if by suhjective, rightly under- 
 stood, be denoted the precise stamp of the author's individuality. 
 We admit this book to form an exception to the rule, but one for 
 which it is easy to account. Already there had been placed among 
 the Hagiographa a large number of liturgic poems, and we have 
 seen above how much use was made of these in the time of Ezra. 
 Now the Lamentations are of the same character as these, as may 
 be seen by comparing them with the elegies and grief-songs of other 
 ancient peoples, and especially when we take into view the uni- 
 form rythmus, in all respects similar to that of the liturgical psalms. 
 Besides it is not as a prophet that Jeremiah composed these chants ; 
 he appears here just as any other pious and inspired subject of the 
 Theocracy might have done. Hence it was held most fitting 
 to place his poems in that class of writings in which the other litur- 
 gical poems were to be found. On the same principle, if Jeremiah 
 wrote any of the psalms (and Hitzig, Begriff der Kritik. s. 53, 
 i.scribes to him a large number, though it must be confessed on 
 
 ^ So Steudel in tlie Disquisitio in loc. Da)i. ix. '24— ~7, p. 8. 
 3 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 59 
 
 very iDSufficient grounds), these would certainly have been incor- 
 porated with the Hagiographa ; just as the 90th Psalm, which there 
 is no reason to doubt was written by Moses, is nevertheless not 
 placed among his other writings. 
 
 § 12. REFUTATION OF CERTAIN ERRONEOUS VIEWS. 
 
 'J'he furthest removed from the truth are those who would ascribe 
 the threefold division of the Canon to the fact of three successive 
 collections of the sacred writings, as Bertholdt, Einl. i. 370, ff. ; 
 De Wette, § 13. The boldest part of this hypothesis is certainly 
 the assumption that the second class, that of the Nebiim, was com- 
 pleted before the third was commenced. In this case all the 
 Hagiographa must either have been written or first discovered at a 
 later period. Both suppositions are inconsistent with the histori- 
 cal testimonies already adduced by us from Ezra and Nehemiah, 
 and neither is in itself probable. If it be conceded (and it is so 
 even by the rationalist theologians) that some of the writings in the 
 Hagiographa must have been known to those whom we have as- 
 sumed as the editors of the Canon, this whole hypothesis falls to 
 the ground. For in this case that part of the Hagiographa which 
 they were acquainted with must have been separated by them, and 
 thus at any rate the division arose with them. But in this way 
 the problem is anything but solved ; we must still come to the 
 original question, and must begin the investigation anew. 
 
 But there is an erroneous view of much greater antiquity, origi- 
 nated by some liabbins in the middle ages, from a mistake as to 
 the meaning of the tradition already mysteriously set forth in the 
 Talmud. They sought the distinction between the Nebiim and 
 the Ket'ubim in the different grades of iiispiraiion of their authors, 
 and distinguished prophecy, properly so called (ni^^!!li)' from the 
 Holy Ghost (tjjipn n^"^)- This theory is chiefly developed by 
 Maimonides in the Moreh Nevochim Par. II. c. 45 p. 317, sq., 
 ed. Buxtorf. Its leading idea is that the degree of the Holy Ghost 
 was lower than that of Prophecy ; consisting chiefly in a revelation 
 by dreams in such a way that the authors of the Hagiographa 
 knew only a part of the truth, whereas proper Prophecy is pure, 
 i.e. contains the truth whole and entire. Perhaps this theory 
 
60 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 sprang from Muhammedan philosophy, which makes an analogous 
 distinction between the Koran and the Sunnah, or other propheti- 
 cal utterances (comp. Hottinger Bibl. Orient, p. 163, 164); at 
 least Maimonides makes frequent use of the ideas of the Arabian 
 philosophers (corap. Buddeus Introd. ad Hist. Philos. Heb. p. 
 ] 62). The same notions are found also in Kimchi (see his pre- 
 face to the Psalms), the later Kabbahsts (Schoetgen, Hor. t. II. 
 p. 293), Abarbanel, and others. 
 
 To me, therefore, it appears a mistake into which some recent 
 scholars, as Hengstenberg (lib. cit. p. 25) and Keil (lib. cit. 
 s. 73), have fallen, when they treat this later Jewish invention as 
 an ancient tradition, and consequently adopt the opinion that there 
 really was an internally different relation in which these men stood 
 to God. (Intimations of the more correct view are to be found in 
 Baumgarten-Crusius, Bibl. Theol. s. 219.) Sack also appears to 
 have given in to this viBw, for he says (Apologetik, s. 308) : " the 
 peculiar character of the Hagiographa is that they do not com- 
 municate the thing given in the revelation- act, but set forth a 
 thought-image springing from the subjective, and yet by no means 
 merely human excitement of the revelation-spirit, with such a re- 
 ference to the elsewhere given word of God that a purer and more 
 living understanding of the latter thence proceeds."^ 
 
 Now in the outset I must confess that this alleged difference of 
 inspiration appears to be so extremely vague and loose, even in the 
 definition, that one can hardly conceive of it as at all describing 
 any regular fact. Of biblical authority it is entirely deficient ; 
 nay, the New Testament may be regarded as directly opposed to it, 
 from the way in which it speaks of David, Daniel, &c. The Holy 
 Ghost represents himself throughout as inspiring the writers of 
 holy Scripture as a body, and his agency in this is throughout the 
 same. It appears to me also certain that this distinction was not 
 believed in by the old orthodox Jews. I conclude this, especially 
 from a passage in the beginning of the Prologue of Ecclesias- 
 ticus, which has not hitherto been adduced as bearing on this 
 subject : ttoWmu koI /jbeydXcov rjfuv 8i,a rod vo/jlov kuI tuv 
 7rpo(j>r]r6i)v koX tcoj' dWcov rwv kut avTOv<; rjKoXovOrjKOTwv 
 
 1 [Not having the slightest idea what the words which Prof. Sack has thrown to- 
 gether in this extract mean, I have translated them ad vcrhum, leaving it with the reader 
 to make sense of them if he can. — Tr.] 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 61 
 
 BeSofMevcov. It is not improbable that the author intended by 
 this remark to make a polemical thrust at the Alexandrians, who 
 gave a one-sided preference to the Thorah (see next section), as he 
 also blames their translation. In that case what he would say is, 
 that the other authors of the Hagiograplia were like the Prophets 
 (var avTov<i) followers, imitators of Moses, and consequently that 
 to both the same reverence is due on account of this their common 
 tendency. 
 
 Further, this theory seems quite inapplicable to the historical 
 books, for instance, of the Hagiograplia compared with the others ; 
 we must in this case go the same length as Cellerier (lutrod. a 
 I'A. T. p. 298), and regard these as merely " des ecrits prives," — 
 an opinion which can meet witb no favour with any one who has 
 carefully read the books of Chronicles. It would follow also from 
 this theory that the prophecies of Daniel must be severed from 
 those of the other Prophets. In like, manner the prophecies in the 
 Psalms, as for instance when the Psalmist speaks obviously in the 
 person of another (the Messiah), as in Ps. xvi. and xxii., can be 
 fully cleared only by the analogy of the prophecies, where the Pro- 
 phet appears altogether in God's stead, and speaks in His name as 
 in spirit identified with Him. 
 
 § 13. HISTORY OF THE CANON AMONG THE JEWS OF PALESTINE 
 AND THOSE OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 We have now to consider the fortunes of the Canon in the times 
 immediately subsequent to its completion. And here that which 
 first demands our notice, is the relation of the Jews in Egyj)t to 
 those in Palestine in this respect. At present we possess a number 
 of apocryphal writings, almost all of which are of Egyptian origin. 
 Did these constitute an integral part of the Alexandrian, or of the 
 Palestinian Canon ? The latter may be regarded as impossible, on 
 the ground of what has been already shown, viz., the closing of 
 tbe Canon among tbe Jews long before. Among the narrow- 
 minded Pharisees also before this time a hatred of Greek literature 
 had displayed itself. They held the study of it to be profane {kolvov 
 
 1 See this, tbe alone correct meaning, more fully developed by Storr in Paulus, N. 
 Repertor. II. s. 231. 
 
62 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 elvai vofjt,l^ovTe<; to eTmr)hevfxa, Joseph. Ant. XX. 11. 2.) The 
 Mishna forbids any one to learn this language,^ and the Gemara 
 cites the proverb : Cursed be he who teaches his son the Greek 
 wisdom.^ 
 
 Perhaps, however, the Alexandrians thought otherwise ; at least 
 some have asserted that the Apocrypha was received by them as 
 canonical. This has been urged by different parties from very 
 different motives : by the Cathohcs, from a desire the better to 
 justify the canonicity which their Church has ascribed to these 
 writings (so Jahn Einl. I. s. 132, ff.) ; by the Eationahsts, with a 
 view of thereby rendering the canonical writings uncertain and sus- 
 pected.^ Their principal reasons are the following: 1. Jahn cites 
 two passages from Jerome for that assertion, viz., from the Pro- 
 logue to Judith, where he says, " apud Hebraeos Judith inter 
 hagiographa legitur," and from the Prologue to the book of 
 Tobit, " librum Tobit, quern— Hebraei his, quae hayiographa me- 
 morant, manciparunt." These passages it will be seen say no- 
 thing of the Alexandrian Jews. The " Hebraei" are always with 
 Jerome those whom he best knew, the Palestinian Jews. Hence 
 Jerome cannot be regarded as affirming anything on the point now 
 before us. There can be no doubt that instead of hagiographa the 
 right reading is apocrypha. Nothing is easier than to conjecture 
 how the former reading arose ; the transcriber or monk, prejudiced 
 by the dogma of his Church, felt himself moved to make the altera- 
 tion. 2. A much weightier argument is founded on the use which 
 the Church Fathers made of the Apocrypha ; it is alleged that 
 the reverence with which they cite these writings as divine can be 
 explained only by the great authority which these enjoyed among 
 the Alexandrians. Now it certainly must be admitted as somewhat 
 startling that the Fathers should so frequently quote the apocryphal 
 writings with the same formulae as the canonical — r) 'ypa(j)r) Xiyei, 
 6 Kvpto<; \ejec, &c. But the difficuky here disappears when we 
 consider how books not in the Old Testament Apocrypha are cited 
 by them. Thus the book of Enoch is referred to by the oldest 
 
 1 n-'Ji'ii 133 ris Bis -rah'' ah'ii. Sota, c. 9, § li, 
 
 2 nijr.i ntosn isa Tahv ms "il-is. Comp. Wagenseil on Tr. Sota, p. 967, sq. 
 
 3 Thus Semler, Freie Unters. d. Kanon I. 5 ; Corrodi, Beleucbtung des Bibel-Kanon 
 I. 155, ff. ; Miinscher, Dogmengesch. I. 257 ; and recently auew Von Animonj d. Fort, 
 bildung des Christentli. z. Weltreligion I. 130. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 63 
 
 Fathers down to the time of Jerome, who calls it an " apocryphum,'' 
 (Fabricius, Cod. Pseudepig. I. p. 168, sq.) ; so also the 4th book 
 of Esdras is cited by Clement of Alexandria thus : \ejec 'EaSpa.'i 
 6 Trpocf)riTr]^ (Strom. III. p. 556, ed. Potter) ; and in like manner 
 Tertullian makes use of the Testament of the twelve Patriarchs aa 
 if it were quite an authentic production (adv. Marc. V. 1 ; Scorp. 
 adv. Gnost. 13.) Few will be inclined to go as far as Corrodi, who 
 inferred from this that these pseudepigraphic writings also formed 
 part of the Alexandrian Canon, for they betray evident traces of 
 Christian authorship. That in such citations we have to do with 
 only the vague and arbitrary notions of the Fathers who enlarged 
 the Canon without any regard to just criticism, and from whose 
 language consequently no inferences can be deduced bearing upon 
 this point, is clear from tlie way in which they speak of the New 
 Testament Apocrypha, where they are entitled to more deference 
 than in the case of the Old Testament. Thus it is not at all im- 
 probable that Justin Martyr made use of apocryphal gospels along 
 with the Canonical (see Credner, Beitriige zur Einl. in. d. Bib. 
 Schr. I. §. 258, fF.) Irenseus cites the Shepherd of Hermas with 
 the words rj jpacj)}] Xeyet (adv. Haer. IV. 20.) Clemens Alex, uses 
 the Krjpvy/uLa Uirpov as if it were quite an apostolic work (Credner, 
 lib. cit. § 351, fi.) Of the Epistle of Barnabas also the same says : 
 Bapvdl3a<i 6 aTToardXoq eTrrjyaye, &c. (Strom. II. p. 447.) &c. 
 
 On the other hand, we have in favour of the identity of the 
 Palestinian and Alexandrian Canons the following considerations: 
 1. Though the Alexandrian Jews differed from those of Palestine 
 in many respects of a religious kind, of which their erecting a 
 temple for themselves at Leontopolis is a sufficient evidence ; we 
 must not regard this as amounting in any case to an entire inde- 
 pendence on their part of their co-religionists.^ Their temple 
 was built on the model of that at Jerusalem, their worship was the 
 same. They sought to avoid a formal schism, and at least to out- 
 ward appearance to hide the internal divergence of opinion. Hence 
 they sent Philo to Jerusalem, there in the name of his countrymen 
 to offer sacrifice." But how could such a schism have been pre- 
 
 1 On this Baumgarten-Crusius justly observes (Bib). Theol. s. 101), that " the Alex- 
 andriau .Judaism stands only in a constrained, self-prelended union with the Mosaism of 
 the Old Testament." 
 
 2 Philo 0pp. 11.646, ed. Mangy; Euseb. Praep. Evang. VIII. 14; EichhornEinl. I., 
 ^21. 
 
J 
 
 64 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 vented had they sanctioned a peculiar Canon ? They would by 
 this have overturned the foundation of their common religion, and 
 rendered all mutual approximation impossible. 2. The translator 
 of Sirach, who, during his residence in Egypt, turned the proverbs of 
 his grandfather into Greek, acknowledges the inferiority of his 
 translation to the original, and adds that the same was the case 
 with the Greek versions of the canonical books in relation to the 
 original. He thus establishes the fact, that there was no difference 
 of Canon ; he rather presupposes an identity, and confines his cen- 
 sure exclusively to the execution of the translation, whilst had he 
 known of any arbitrary additions to the Canon, he would not have 
 passed over these in silence. 3. Philo, the most important witness 
 in everything relating to the opinions of his countrymen, and who 
 faithfully represents all the degeneracy of their rehgious notions, 
 attests the identity of the Canon. It is highly probable that he was 
 acquainted with the Apocrypha, and draws sometimes from them 
 the expression of his ideas. Nowhere, however, does he cite any 
 of them expressly ; he never founds any reasoning on them ; he 
 nowhere ascribes to them divine or canonical authority.'^ Philo in 
 this respect is followed by Justin Martyr, who frequently might 
 have found a confirmation of his ideas in the Apocrypha, but in no 
 case makes any use of them. 4. Josephus expressly states 
 that all the non-canonical writings possessed but a limited cre- 
 dibility, and were not inspired (c. Ap. I. 8). As a Hellenist, 
 however, whose knowledge of Hebrew was but moderate (Gese- 
 nius, Gesch. d. Heb. Spr. s. 80, ff.), Josephus uses the LXX. 
 His testimony is thus of so much greater weight ; for since there 
 is no denying a certain approximation on his part to the Alex- 
 andrian Judaism, especially in what is common to it with hea- 
 thenism (see Baumgarten-Crusius, s. 61 and 102, ff.), it is certain 
 that he would have spoken otherwise of the Apocrypha had the 
 Alexandrians regarded them as canonical. 
 
 There is a party which, with Bertholdt (Einl. I. s. 98), adopt a 
 middle view, and contend that there was a p?-ivate use of the 
 Apocrypha as canonical writings though not a public one. But 
 had this been the case we must have detected this private use in 
 
 1 Comp. Hornemann Observationes, ad. illustr. doct. de canone V. T. ex Philone 
 p. 28 et 29. Eichhoru, Einl. I. § iiC, flf. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 66 
 
 the writings of Philo. Strictly speaking, however, there is no 
 proper sense in which one can speak of canonical writings as only 
 used privatim ; it is a contradictio in adjecto. Besides, why in 
 the case of the Alexandrians of all others should we suppose such 
 a contrast between private opinion and open avowal ? By this 
 they would have fallen under the same, nay, under a greater re- 
 proach, as not really belonging to the Jews, and this was what 
 they especially sought to avoid. 
 
 In proceeding to consider the fortunes of the Canon among the 
 Jews of Palestine in the period before Christ, we have next to con- 
 sider certain differences as to the extent of the canonical literature, 
 which arose not within the orthodox party in Judea, but among cer- 
 tain sects which were Judaic only in pretence. The first of these that 
 offers itself is the Samariums, whose so-called canon consists solely 
 of the Pentateuch, and a peculiar form of the book of Joshua. The 
 characteristics of the Samaritan Pentateuch point to Egypt for its 
 origin. The close analogy of the Alexandrian and Samaritan edi- 
 tions of the Pentateuch can be explained in hardly any other way 
 than by the fact that through means of the multitude of Samari- 
 tans who, from the time of Alexander, were in Egypt, the Alex- 
 andrian recension of the Pentateuch had been conveyed to their 
 countrymen in Palestine.i But it would appear that something more 
 than this had passed from the Alexandrians to the Samaritans, viz., 
 an opinion respecting the Pentateuch adopted to an extreme by 
 the latter. Under the influence of a leaning towards the heathen 
 doctrine of mysteries (cultivated especially by the philosophers of 
 Alexandria) on the part of the Alexandrian Jews, attention was early 
 directed to Moses and his writings as the oldest documents of their 
 nation ; he was placed on a parallel with Orpheus, Linus, and other 
 heroes of heathen antiquity, and represented as the founder of the 
 mysteries, and as himself initiated in all divine secrets. As early as 
 in the fragments of Aristobulus (in the second century before Christ) 
 we may detect the beginning of this mode of interpretation ;^ but it 
 is in the writings of Philo that we find it displayed in all its com- 
 pleteness.^ Now the fact that the Samaritans excluded all the other 
 
 1 See the admirable Essay on the Samaritan Pentateuch in Tholuck's Literar. 
 Anzeiger 1833, No. 39, s. 339. 
 
 2 Comp. Euseb. Praep.jEvang. viii.lO; xiii.lO; Clem. Alex., Strom, i.p. 342 ed. Potter. 
 
 3 See Planck (the younger) De principiis et causis interpret. Philon. allegor, Gott. 
 1806, p. 20. 
 
 E 
 
<)6 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 books of Scripture from their canon, shows how much they had 
 imbibed such views ; to which, indeed, from their heathen origin, 
 and from being then the rivals of the Jews, they would be the more 
 inclined. This is still further shown by the way in which they 
 spoke of the prophetical and other Scriptural books. Thus in the 
 Samaritan Chronicle of Abul-Fatach (a work of the fourteenth 
 century) we are told that these books are utterly useless, and that 
 the Tiaw being wholly perfect is suflBcient, and reference is made 
 to Deut. iv, 2 (see Paulus, Neues Kepertorium I. 136). Similar, 
 nay still stronger, assertions occur in the passages collected by Ge- 
 senius (De Peotateuchi Saraar. orig. ind. de auct. comm. p. 4), 
 who very justly remarks : " Cave vero, ne haec omnia pro recen- 
 tioribus demum Samaritanorum inventis habeas. Non enim du- 
 bitandum, banc sectam veterum institutorum admodum tenacem in 
 his secutam esse opiniones a primis statira ejus conditoribus in- 
 stillatas." 
 
 One can easily conceive how such a germ might have been pro- 
 pagated among the Jews ; how for instance the Sadducees, a sect 
 which had entirely fallen away from orthodox Judaism, might 
 have embraced false views as to the canonical writings of their 
 nation, and in this respect manifested their sceptical, free-thinking 
 bias. But of this we possess no historical evidence. For the as- 
 sertions of the Fathers (see the passages in Drusius, Syntagma de 
 tribus sectis Jud. 1. iii. c. 9) are here of no vftlue, as these proceed 
 from their confounding the Samaritans and Sadducees. In the 
 New Testament we have no hints of their rejecting the Pro- 
 phets and the Hagoigrapha ; Matt xxii. 23, flf., cannot be ad- 
 duced as intimating this. As little does Jesephus attest this 
 when he says (Antiqq. XVIII. 1. 4): (f)v\aKTJ'i 8e ouBafMciov 
 rivwv fjueTairoirjcnf; avrol'i rj tcov voficov, for here he is speaking 
 of their esteeming the Mosaic writings, not to the exclusion 
 of the other Old Testament writings, but in opposition to the 
 traditions of the Pharisees, as is clear from what he adds : Trpo? 
 fyap T0V9 8t8acr«aXou? ao(f>ia<;, rjv /xeTLamv, d/ji,(pcX,oy€tv aperrjv 
 dptdfjbovcn. With this the other passage of Josephus is in exact 
 accordance (Ant. XIII. 10. 6) : vofMCfia jroXXd nva nrapehoaav r& 
 Bi]fjba) 01 ^apicraloL e/c rrajepoiv SiSa')(i]<; airep ovk dvayeypaTrrat 
 iv TO?? Mwicreo)? v6fjbOi<i koI Bid rovTOTavTaro XahBovKalutvyevo'i 
 eK^dWei, \iyov eKccva Beiv rj<yeta6ai vo/jLC/xa rd yeypa/jb/jueva, ra 8 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 67 
 
 eK irapahoarewi Trarepcop fxr) rrjpelv, from wliich it is clear that they 
 received all that was committed to writing, the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testameut, whilst they rejected the comments and additions of the 
 Pharisees. The most convincing evidence, however, against the 
 supposition that the Sadducees had swerved from their deference 
 to the sacred writings is found in the fact, attested by both the New 
 Testament and Josephus, that they no less than the Pharisees dis- 
 charged theocratic functions, which could hardly have happened 
 in the case supposed. Even for the opinion held by some scholars 
 (as Paulus, Comment, lib. d. Evangel. I. s. 196), that among the 
 Sadducees there was an especial estimation of the Pentateuch over 
 the other Scriptures, to the effect that the former was alone de- 
 cisive in matters of faith, no historical evidence can be adduced. 
 The special estimation of the Pentateuch was rather a common than 
 a distinctive mark of the two parties. 
 
 It is otherwise with the question of the Canon among the Es- 
 seues. The connection of this sect with Judaism was altogether 
 more loose and outward, as is shown by the circumstance that, 
 whilst they sent free-will offerings to the temple, they presented no 
 sacrifices there (Joseph. Ant. XVIII. 1). Their relation also to 
 Heathenism, especially to the Mysteries of the Heathen (the Eleu- 
 sinia), has been placed beyond doubt by the remarks of Creuzer in 
 his Symbohk, Th. IV. s, o02, 3H2, 40;3, ff. Their leaning to Hea- 
 thenism, however, was of such a kind that they assimilated what- 
 ever was most spiritual and significant in it, and hence we may 
 infer that in regard to Judaism their position was not that of cold, 
 intellectual negation, but rather that of persons who attempted to 
 combine it with the more vital elements uf Heathenism. It is un- 
 questionable that they received the writings of the Jews. Of the 
 Therapeutae, who, though not identical with the Essenes, were 
 yet closely allied to them, we are assured by Philo that they re- 
 ceived the collected canonical integral parts of the Old Testament, 
 (p. GOl ed. Colon.), and also of the Essenes he says, p. 679 : aXeirr- 
 rwi '^(^poofievoc Tot9 irarpioi'i v6fjbOL<i, and, immediately after, that they 
 every Sabbath read out of the Scripture ; at least such seems to 
 be the meaning of the expression 6 fj,ev Ta<i ^i/S'kov'; avayiv- 
 (ocTKet, &c., for in the context Philo says that they interpreted these 
 
 books allegorically (ra yap irXelcna Sia avfjb/36Xo)V 
 
 Trap avTol<i (f>L\oao(j)eLTai} , and he affirms the same thing of the 
 
 1-; ^ 
 
68 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 Therapeutae (p. 091 : 6Wy7%avovT6<? to2<s lepcordroL^; '^pa-iiixacri^v- 
 Xo(To(jiov(n rr}v irdrpiov <^Ckoao<^Lav dWrj'yopovvTe'i), the one pas- 
 sage being illustrative of the other. But, besides the scriptural 
 books, they possessed also other sacred writings, and these, accord- 
 ing to the character of the sect, were of three kinds : I. ra r&v 
 TtaXai&v avyypdp^fiaTa, as .Josephus calls them (de B. Jud. II. 8. 
 7), and Philo also (p. 091) ; these were probably apocryphal pro- 
 ductions ascribed to famous men of earlier times, as may be ga- 
 thered from what Philo says : icrrl Be avroh rd avyjpdfiftara toov 
 nraXatoiv dvBpcov o'i ri}? alpeaeca dp'yrj'ye.rai fyevofievoi •TToWd fxprj- 
 fxela . . . aTriXiTTOV, oh /caOdirep tlctIv dp')(^TV'iroi^ XP^' 
 fjuevoi, &c. 2. As they had prophets among them^ (of which Jose- 
 phus gives a remarkable instance. Ant. XV. 10), they preserved the 
 writings, the oracles, and the wise sayings of them ; comp. Joseph, 
 de B. Jud. II. 8 : elal Be kv ayrot? ol koI fxiWovTa TrpoytvcoaKeiv 
 VTncT'^vovvTai ySt/SXiOi? lepat'i, koX Bia(p6poi<i dyveiai<i koX Trpo^rj- 
 TQ)v dTTocj^OeyfjiacrLv €fi7rai,BoTpi/3ovfji,evoi. 3. Finally, they had 
 sacred songs, v/xvoi, ev')(al, with which, after the manner of the hea- 
 then (Creuzer s. 409, If.), they hailed the rising sun. Josephus, 
 indeed, calls these songs, iraTplovi eu^d'; (de B. Jud. II. 8. 4) 
 but in that case there must have been recompositions and also new 
 ones expressly written by them {ttoloixtlv acrfiuTa koI vpi,vov<; eh 
 rov Oeov, Philo, p. 091), and the same writer, p. 097, distinguishes 
 expressly two classes of hymns, old and new, and gives a descrip- 
 tion of their artificial rythmical structure.. — All these writings taken 
 together constituted a whole, as appears from Josephus de Bell. 
 Jud. II. 8. 7, where it is stated that they bound themselves crvv- 
 Tr)pT]a€LV 6/Mo io)^ rd t?)? alpe(Teco<; avroov J3il3\(,a. 
 
 §14. TESTIMONY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RESPECTING THE OLD 
 
 TESTAMENT CANON. 
 
 We thus see that the Canon of the Old Testament, as it was 
 fixed at the time of its formation, was throughout recognised by 
 the orthodox Jews, and even by the heretical secessions, up to the 
 time of Christ. The next enquiry of importance respects the judg- 
 
 1 Also in Eleusis tlm cbief of the priests was called, by way of eminence, irpo- 
 </)tjTi;9, Creuzer s. 482. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 6'^ 
 
 ment pronounced upon the Canon so constituted in the New Testa- 
 ment. This question is no.t purely historical ; it is also dogmatical. 
 History can only show the condition of the Canon at that time ; 
 the mode in which our Saviour treated it, by recognising it, gives 
 it, from the peculiarity of his person as the truth itself, a new 
 stamp of truth. The Canon of the Old Testament is thus placed 
 in a closer connection with the acknowledgment or rejection of the 
 Saviour ; to those who receive the Lord as what he announced 
 Himself to be, his witness becomes impregnable, sacred truth ; his 
 recognition of the Canon possesses infallibility. 
 
 According to our Lord's express declarations, his person and 
 appearance were the fulfilling of all Scripture. His whole life at- 
 tested this truth. In his person, even to the minutest details, we 
 find Scripture fulfilled. Scripture formed the foundation of his 
 teaching ; with this he confounded his foes ; with this lie encou- 
 raged his disciples. For this purpose the whole Canon of the Old 
 Testament, as it existed among the Jews of his day, was called 
 into use by him, as the fountain of these divine revelations, without 
 his intimating that any part of it was not genuine. He carefully 
 discriminated the irapahoaei'i of the Pharisees, and their Soy/J^ara 
 dypa<pa, as mere ivraXfiara dvOpooircov, from the divine injunctions 
 of Scripture, Matt. xv. 3, ff. He frequently, in citing the Old 
 Testament, makes use of the received expression among the Jews 
 as a designation of the whole al ypa^al (Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29 ; 
 Mark xii. 21 ; John v. 39), or i) jpacpi], John x. 35, xvii. 12. He 
 also calls the Old Testsment — naming it a potiori — 6 yo/xo9 espe- 
 cially in contradistinction to the gospel of New Covenant (John x. 
 34 ; Matt. xii. 34 ; xv. 25) ; or inasmuch as also the promise is con- 
 tained in the Old Covenant, 6 v6fio<; Kal ol 7rpocf}7]Tai (Matt. xi. 13), 
 or simply ol '7Tpo(j)rjTaL (Luke xviii. 31). The choice of these ex- 
 pressions is not to be regarded as arbitrary, nor are they to be 
 explained merely by certain formulae current among the Rabbins ; 
 they rather stand in each case in close connection with our Lord's 
 discourse, and are never arbitrarily used. The most precise de- 
 scription, however, of the Canon given by our Lord occurs in Luke 
 xxiv. 44 : BetrrXrjpcoOrjvai irdvTa to, yeypa/j,/j,6pa ev tw vojjbco Mcoij- 
 
 1 How tliis name came to have tliis wider meauiug is shown by Jarcbi on Ps. xssi . 
 23. Surenlmsii Bij8\, KaraW. p. 42, sq. Hettinger, Tlies. Phil. p. 315, Waehuer Anliq. 
 Hebr. i. 8. 
 
70 HISTOilY OF THE CANON. 
 
 crect)? KoX 7rpo(f)r]rat,<i Koi -v|raXyu,ot9 Trepl ifiov. Even the threefold 
 division of the Canon here shows only the more clearly how the 
 Saviour regarded the Canon in its whole extent as a holy hook 
 It is the iracrai at lypacpal, huke xxiv. 27, and at ypacpai, xxiv. 
 45, as the Evangehst expresses himself in the same chapter, that 
 are this. In this respect nothing can he more arbitrary than from 
 the expression -v^aX/io? to infer that the whole of Scripture was not 
 intended here by Christ, though even Schleiermacher deduces some- 
 thing like this from this expression (Christ. Gl. II. 382). Certainly 
 it is proper to ask why such an expression should be used to de- 
 signate the third class of the Old Testament writings. Among the 
 Eabbins this mode of citing it is very rare (comp. Berachoth, fol. 
 22) ; and usually it is accounted for from the fact that the book of 
 Psalms was the first in the Hagiographa (so Hengstenberg recently, 
 Beitrage, s. 29) But this is to aseign a purely arbitrary reason, 
 and one which does not take into view the Hellenistic nsi/s loquendi 
 which is here to be especially considered. In this it was preferred 
 to call this portion fJ/u.i'ot, as is done by Philo (devit. cont. p. 691, ed. 
 Colon.) and Josephus (cont. Ap. i. 8), because it contains the poeti- 
 cal portions of Scripture, by which it is distinctively characteiised 
 from the other parts, and because in this way it was made to sus- 
 tain an analogy to the holy hymns so common among the Greeks 
 (comp. Arrian de Expcd. Aloxand. IV. 11. 3: vixvoi fiev e? rovii 
 6eov<; TToiovvrat, erracvoi 8e i^ avOpcoirovi). For this they came to 
 use in a synonymous sense the word -^^aXiJioi, though of more com- 
 prehensive meaning with the Hellenists, for which Josephus uses 
 (phai and fikXr] (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 26 ; Jos. Antiqq. VI. 14 : irpoai 
 ra^e tS yjraXfia) kuI rot? vfivoL'i k^aSeLV avrov. Arch. X. 5, /ieXo? 
 dpTjvrjTLKOv. VIII. 2 (Solomon) crvveTa^aro he koL ^Lpklov Trepl 
 mS&v KoX fieXwv). The full description of these would be some such 
 expression as Josephus uses, c. Ap. i. 8, vfivovi eh rov deov, koX 
 TOt? av9p(07roi,<i v7ro9^Ka^ tov ^lov Trepie^ovcr/.v : but nothing is 
 more conceivable than that such abbreviations as those should be 
 used where there was no risk of missing the sense. 
 
 This same mode of treating the Old Testament Canon we find 
 
 I The most frivolous notion is that of Cellerier, Introd. p. 367, who concludes hence 
 that, " La plupart des hagiographes etaient moius connus et moins importants que laloi 
 et les pvophetes." No hetter is that of Bretschneider, who thinks " that he (Christ) no- 
 where snys that he held the whole Old Testament for revealed," &c. (Pogm, i. 81.). 
 
HISTORY OF THE UANON. 7l 
 
 among the apostles ; to tbem also the whole Old Testament is a 
 book containing holy and divine revelations, and leading to Christ ; 
 com^. e.gf/-. 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4. Hence they call it 7pa^at a7ia4, Eom. 
 i. 2, and iepa <ypd/jLjjLaTa, 2 Tim. iii. 15 ; the former with a special 
 reference to its relation to God the Holy Spirit, who as such reveals 
 himself in the Old Testament, the latter with especial reference to 
 human worship, the acknowledgment by men of these divine reve- 
 lations.^ In respect of the former, the scripture is inspired of God 
 {6e6'iTvevaro<i, 2 Pet. i. 21 ; 1 Pet. i. 11, if.) ; in respect of the 
 latter it is 7) iroKaLa hiadrjKr}, the document containing the Cove- 
 nant entered into between God and man (2 Cor. iii. 14, where the 
 apostle is speaking of writings, as the word ava'yv(aaei, shows), 
 and especially of the Pentateuch, the basis of the old covenant 
 (comp. Exod. xxiv. 7 ; xxxiv. 27, 28, ^i^\o<i tt)? 8cadriKr]<i, 2 
 Kings xxiii. 2, LXX. ; Sn-. xxiv. 23 ; 1 Mace. i. 57.)- 
 
 Justly, therefore, may we conclude that the Old Testament, as 
 we have it, possessed the full sanction of the New Testament. In- 
 dependent of this, we have seen the agency of prophets and men of 
 God in the collection of these writings ; and the recognition of the 
 sacred literature as resulting from this, according to the divine will. 
 This fact bears a remarkable relation to that now before us ; inas- 
 much as it is through the latter that tiie former, as an act of God's 
 love to his people, appears in its great design. If the Old 
 Covenant is to be viewed as preparatory, as the 'n-atSa'yo}<yo<; eh Xpia- 
 Tov, beyond all question there required to be divine witnesses to 
 declare Him who is the chief object of the Old Testament to be 
 such for the confirmation of his disciples, and the confutation of 
 his foes. And so it came to pass in word and deed in the fulness 
 of the times, by the second recognition of the writings of the Old 
 Covenant. Then first were fully manifested the excellence of these 
 testimonies, and the grace of Him under whose protection they had 
 been preserved. 
 
 1 On the distinction between Upo? and liyio^, siicer and sanctiis See Stepliani Thes. 
 Gr. ed. Hase. torn. I. p. 325. 'Itpn ypd/xfxara occurs also in Jos. Ant. X. x. 4. 
 U pwrara ypa/n/xaTa in Philo 1. c. 
 
 2 Bertboldt, Einl. I. 41, would extend this to tie collective writings of the Old Testa 
 ment, but erroneously. It is expressely said, ver. 15, as an explanation tjviku dva- 
 yivwa-KiTai, Mtoii(n';s. It is on this, moreover, that the name Test amen turn (=- foedus, 
 "pactum viventium," Ilieron. in Miitt. c. 2) used by TertuUian, adv. Marc. iv. 1, rests, 
 for which instrunientum was also used, the proper designation of the codex of the Holy 
 Scriptui-es. (Augustin. de. civ. Dei xx, 4.) 
 
72 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 § 15. HISTORY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON IN THE CHRISTIAN 
 
 CHURCH. 
 
 The first Christians used to read the Old Testament writings as 
 well as those of the New in their Church assemblies, and that from 
 a deep conviction of the divine revelations contained in them. 
 " We love the prophets," says Ignatius, Ep. ad Philad. c. 5, " for 
 they also announce the Gospel. "i " Which shall we believe," asks 
 Irenseus, Adv. Haer. II. 2, " the heretics who speak absurdly and 
 contradict themselves, or the disciples of the Lord and Moses, his 
 true servants and prophets ?" We find also that it is chiefly upon 
 Old Testament passages that the Fathers rest their proofs of dogmas. 
 (Comp. Credner, Lib. cit. p. 26, fi".)- 
 
 The Fathers commonly divide the Old Testament into Law and 
 Prophets, as they do the New into ivayyeXiov and airocndko'i . 
 Ireneeus is the first who applies the term Canon to the sacred 
 writings.3 This title, borrowed from tbe New Testament (Gal. vi. 
 ] 6), has reference to the doctrines, the divine revelations in these 
 books. Kavcov is equivalent to /3i/3/Vot rov Kavovo^, and denotes 
 those books in which the true religion is to be found, the alone 
 and supreme criterion of faith, denominated by way of pre-eminence 
 
 THE RULE,* 
 
 It was unfortunate for the early church in reference to their 
 treatment of the Old Testament, that their ignorance of Hebrew 
 compelled so many of them to read it exclusively in the Alexandrian 
 
 1 Comp. tbe Letter to Dioguetus c. 11, and Hug, EinL ins N. T. 1. 118, 3te Ausg. 
 
 2 It is certaiuly not satisfactory, to say tbe least, to affirm with Scbleiermacber ("Lib. 
 cit. p. 381), tbat tbis usage in tbe Cbnrcb arose principally from tbe fact, tbat Cbrist 
 bad read tbe Old Testament in tbe Synagogups, and that tbis custom was followed while 
 as yet tlae writings of the New Testament were not collected (though in existence!), 
 whence the erroneousness of an equal homiletical use of tbe Old and New Testament 
 would follow. But if histoiy be asked, it will be found tbat the dogmatical interest was 
 evidently what determined tbis usage. 
 
 3 Iren. ad. Haer. iii. 11 : regulam fidei {navova tj}s dXjjfitias ) Irenaeus is speaking 
 here immediiitely of tbe Gospel of John ; but doubtless tbis expression was used also of 
 the other holy books. Comp. Isidor. Pelus. Epist. 114 ; briok Tav-ra oi/tcos ex'* tqv 
 K a V 6 V a Tjis dXijOtias, Tas Gt/as (pi)fJil ypa(j)ai KaToirTtViyiMfXiV. 
 
 4 Tbeodoret, on Gal. vi. 16, explains the word by SiSaa-KaXla, Oeeumenius by 
 SiSaxi'h Comp. in geueral tbe excellent Essay of II. Planck, " Nonnulla de significatu 
 canonis in ecclesia antiqua ejusque serie rectius constituenda," in tbe Comment. Theol. 
 of Rosenmiiller, &c., I. p 208, sq. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 73 
 
 version. Gentile Christians were thus deprived of any acquaint- 
 ance with the proper Jewish Canon, and hence critical mistakes 
 became at least very possible. From the conviction produced by 
 the controversies of the Fathers with the Jews, that the latter had 
 vitiated the text of the Holy Scriptures, and the consequent distrust 
 in the genuineness of the Canon thus produced,^ such mistakes were 
 rendered almost inevitable. People were thus readily led to regard 
 the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament written in Greek as 
 canonical. Critical inquiry was the less earnestly and searchingly 
 directed to this subject from the circumstance that it was not with 
 our extant Apocrypha that the oldest controversies in the Church 
 had to do, but with writings issuing from the Gnostic sects, and 
 reverenced by them as the sources of their mystic wisdom. These 
 were called airoKpvc^a by way of eminence, and hence this word 
 was taken in the sense of heretical compositions. They formed a 
 principal object of ecclesiastical polemics, and a damnatory sen- 
 tence was passed on them, along with the doctrines of their 
 author. 
 
 It was in the Eastern Church that most pains were bestowed on 
 the settling of the Jewish Canon. Of great value in this respect 
 is a document preserved to us by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. IV. 26. 
 Melito Bishop of Sardis (towards the end of the second century) 
 made a journey to Palestine, and there instituted searching inqui- 
 ries concerning the Old Testament books (d/cptySw? fiadoov ra T7]<i 
 TTokaia^ 8ia6)]K7]^ ^l/dXia). He made a catalogue of them, with 
 extracts from them, concerning which he writes a letter to one 
 Onesimus which Eusebius has preserved to us. From this it is 
 quite evident how, in the uncertainty which then prevailed among 
 the Christians as to the constituent parts of the Old Testament 
 Canon, there was along with this an earnest purpose, by reverting 
 to the original sources as supplying the only decisive rule in such 
 
 1 Justin especially expresses himself to this effect in his Dialogue with Trypho. 
 Comp. Zastraw, loc. cit. p. 29, sqq. 
 
 2 TertuUian de anima c. 2. Penes nos apocryphorum coufessione damnaniiir. See 
 Gieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829. H. I,, s. 143. I observe here further that the word 
 diroKpvfpoi is commonly viewed as a translation of the Hebrew fiifOj (see e. gr. Hug. 
 1. c. 119). But more correctly its origin is due to the heathen usage of speech, whence 
 so much besides was borrowed by the Gnostics. In the heathen mysteries the KpvTrrd 
 libri absconditi, played a very important part; see St Croix, Kecherches sur les mysteres 
 ii. p. 11 and 56, ed. De Sacy. 
 
74 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 a case, to arrive at fixed results ou this bead. One thing, how- 
 ever, in this catalogue is startling — the omission of the Books of 
 Nehemiah and Esther. It appears to me most probable that this 
 omission is attributable merely to a difference from our mode of 
 reckoning the Old Testament books. Melito counted Esther and 
 Nehemiah as forming with Ezra one internally connected whole, 
 as indeed had been already done in the ancient arrangement of the 
 Talmudists, where they follow one another, and are connected to- 
 gether (comp. Tr. Bava Bathra fol. 14. 2).i In like manner the 
 account of what passed between Origen and Julius Afiicanus 
 (see Neander, Church Hist. Vol. ii. p. 509, Eng. Trans.) shows 
 how to a few of the more profound inquirers the truth in this 
 dep^tment did not remain hid, but how, on the other hand, the 
 common use in the Church of the Apocrypha had its influence 
 upon the opinion of even so independent a critic as Origen. Ne- 
 vertheless the Canon of Origen, which is preserved by Eusebius, 
 H. E. VI. 25, is composed with reference to Jewish tradition (o)? 
 'E^paioc vapaSiSoaa-av) , and is in unison with the Canon of the 
 Jews ; for the omission of the hwheKairpot^'qTov is merely a mistake 
 of the transcriber, as it is found in the translation of Ruffinus. The 
 only point that requires notice is the clause 'Iepeixia<i avv dp^voi<i 
 Kol rfj eTT i(TTo\7}, that is the letter of Jeremiah extant in the 
 Book of Baruch ch. vi. Origen could hardly obtain this from the 
 Jews,^ whose traditions he only in the general followed, but was 
 led into the error by the practice of the Church, which from an 
 early period received Baruch as a production of Jeremiah." Thus 
 it was that Origen, who in theory makes some admirable remarks 
 on canonical and apocryphal writings (comp. Planck, loc. cit. p. 
 215), was led in practice to waver in his judgment of certain 
 writings. (Miinscher, 1. c. s. 200, ff.) So also among the later 
 Fathers, we find the just distinction between canonical, apocryphal, 
 and pseudepigraphic writings ; of which the last were wholly re- 
 jected as heretical, the first were alone regarded as truly in- 
 
 1 For similar reasons tlie liook of Esther is iilso wanting in the catalogue given by 
 Gregory Nazianz. 0pp. ii. 98, and Athanasius Epist Festal. 0pp. i. 961, ed Benedict. 
 
 '■i As Miiasi-herDogmen. Gesch. i. 205, andBertholdt s. 93, think. 
 
 •i Comp. for instance Irenaeus adv. hiier. v. 35: " signifieavit Jeremias propheta" 
 (Bar. iv. 36). 
 
 i The name xl/ivBeTriypatpa occurs in Cyrill. rated), iv. 36; tn Si Xonrct \}/tvS(.- 
 Triypaipa Kai fiXajiipd Tuy)(ai'ii. 
 
 3 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 7o 
 
 spired, J and the second, called dvajLvcoaKofieva, ^vere in accordance 
 with ancient usage read in the Church, without heing respected as 
 inspired." But this division was dangerous for the mass and even to 
 theologians, for in the Laodicean Canon (see on this Bickell 
 Stud, und Krit. 1830, s. 591 — 614) we find sanctioned as cano- 
 nical 'Iepeyu,ta?, Bapoi)'^, dprjvoi koI iincrrdXT] (in the so-called Isi- 
 dorian version we find only Jeremiah). Thus, in course of time, 
 uncertainty as to what was canonical and what apocryphal crept 
 into the Canon, and 6. gr in the Canones Apostolici, which 
 was produced in the course of the 5th century, the three books of 
 Maccabees (whether Judith also is uncertain) are ranked amoug 
 the canonical writings (of. Coteler, Pat. Apost. I. 448) 3 
 
 The Western Church was still less scrupulous about the Apo- 
 crypha, especially after the time of Augustine. What was decided 
 on this head by the Council at Hippo in the year 393 is uncer- 
 tain ; for what we possess, in the collections, of the ordinances of 
 this Council is so contradictory that it excites distrust as to its 
 originality. But the Synods of Carthage, the 3rd An. 397 and 
 the 6th An. 419, (Mansi, Concil. Collect. III. 89 1), pronounced 
 the greater part of our present Apocrypha (viz. Tobit, Judith, 
 Wisdom, Sirach, two books of Maccabees) canonical. Neverthe- 
 less Jahn is perfectly correct when he says (1. 138) that these de- 
 clarations are to be understood as intimating nothing more than 
 that in these books there is nothing injurious to faith or morals, 
 and that, consequentlj, they are not to be banished from the 
 Church, but arc to be read as instructive and edifying writings. A 
 comment on these declarations is furnished by Augustine's ex- 
 pressions which exercised a great influence upon them. Au- 
 gustine, however, though already he had in general discriminated 
 between canonical, i.e. read in the Churches, and apocryphal or 
 heretical (chiefly Manicheean) writings (De civit. Dei XV. 23 ; 
 cont. Faust. XXII. 79), nevertheless distinguishes again among the 
 
 1 Comp, Theodoret, Piaef. ad Cant. Cant.: touto to fStpXiov Tats- deiai^ ypacfial^ 
 srvvTiTaxoTii, Kal uts Srj Tri/iv.uaTiKa, KavovicravTS^ avTo, etc. 
 
 2 Atbanas. Ep. ad Rufin : ouk Kavovt^ofxiua iJikv,-rtTVjr6ij.tva di irapa -^wv iraTifiwv 
 avayivwaKiTai xois apTi •7rpoiTip\oiJ.ivoLi Kill fiov\op.iiioi9 KaTtiyslaOiti. top tj;s d\i- 
 6t/as Xoyov. Planck, loc, cit. p. 216, sqq. 
 
 3 On the Syriac Canon, see cli. iv. Of the Syriac translations. 
 
 ■* Comp. tlic writings adduced by Walcli, Gescli. der Kirclienreisaniml. s. 240 
 
76 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 canonical books, inasmuch as he, partially at least, confesses that 
 the apocryphal writings, included among the canonical, were not 
 received by all, and he repeatedly expresses doubt as to their in- 
 ternal worth, as to their inspiration.! But in any case Augustine 
 furnishes no certain opinion as to individual books, and from the 
 decision of the synods it does not appear that any distinction was 
 made by them among the so-called libri Canonici ; so that their 
 being placed together must have had in this case even a worse 
 effect than it had on the more discriminating orientals. 
 
 Jerome regarded this subject from a much surer point of view, 
 and his services in regard to it are much greater than his church, 
 alas ! is even yet disposed to acknowledge. He rightly judged 
 that for the determination of the Canon it was needful to revert to 
 the genuine Jewish Canon, in order to know what books should be 
 received into the New Testament as canonical, and here his studies 
 and his connection with Jews peculiarly assisted him. In his estima- 
 tion, that is alone canonical which is a writing inspired by God, and 
 on which the dogmas of the Church are to be founded ; all besides 
 he regards as apocryphal. 2 Eegardless of what the Church of his 
 day fixed on this head (see his Prolog, in Judith), he holds firmly 
 by this distinction, applies it unflinchingly, and decides accord- 
 ingly. His Prologus Galeatus affords the best view of his critical 
 procedure. After he has strictly determined the twenty-two books 
 of the Hebrew Canon, he expresses himself thus : " Quicquid ex- 
 tra hos est, inter apocrypha ponendum." The Church may, he 
 says, continually read them " ad aedificationem plebis," only they 
 must not be used " ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum 
 confirmandam." 
 
 At a later period this opposition of opinions, represented by two 
 distinguished Fathers of the Church, led to a division of parties, 
 according as the one or the other view was followed. The Cartha- 
 ginian decision was adopted by the Eomish Church in consequence 
 of its being ratified by a Roman Council under Gelasius I. in the 
 year 491.^ Cassiodorus had such reverence for both opinions that 
 
 1 Comp. Marheinecke, Symbolik i. 2, p. 231, fl". Clausen, Aur. Augustiu. 6. s. inter- 
 pres. p. 40, sq. 
 
 2 Comp. Gieseler, loc. cit. s. 144. Marbeinecke, s, 233. 
 
 3 Harduin Act. Concil. ii. 937. The fact nevertheless is not duly ascertained ; see 
 Walch lib. cit. 328. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 77 
 
 he inserts the one after the other, with the remark that the differ- 
 ence between them is not great (De Inst. Div. Litter, c. 12 — 14). 
 With Gregory the Great the opinion of Jerome seems to have had 
 such weight that he declares the first hook of. Maccabees not ca- 
 nonical (Moral, in Job. lit. xix. c. 13). Of the capricious judg- 
 ments into which this diversity sometimes led later writers, we have 
 one instance in Junilius, who places Sirach among the canonical 
 books, and enumerates Chronicles, Job, Esther, Judith, Nehemiah, 
 the two books of the Maccabees, Canticles, and the Wisdom of 
 Solomon, as those respecting which there is doubt.^ The same 
 dubiety continued till a later period, as the work of Notker, an 
 abbot of St Gall's, on the most famous interpreters of Scripture, 
 a work of the tenth century, shows ; where he classes the Wisdom 
 of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Esther, and Chronicles together, and 
 expresses doubts of their canonicity (Rosenmiiller, Hist. Interp. 
 Libb. sacer. v. 143, sq.) Of especial interest are the observations 
 of Nicolaus de Lyra (died 1340) de Libris Biblia? Canonicis et 
 non-canonicis (Kosenmiiller, lib, cit. p. 285, sq.) Many, he says, 
 no longer recognise this distinction ; they regard all the writings 
 " pari veneratione," and are vexed if any distinguish between them. 
 He repeats the decision of Jerome, and gives the following defini- 
 tion : Canonici sunt confecti spiritu sancto dictante ; non canonici 
 autem sive apocryphi nescitur, quo tempore quibusve auctoribus 
 sint editi. He has nothing, however, to object against the reading 
 in church of the latter, and calls them " valde bonos et utiles," 
 with the remark, " nihil in eis quod canonicis obviet, invenitur." 
 
 § IG. CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CANON. 
 
 It thus appears that there were not wanting witnesses in the 
 Catholic Church itself from the middle ages, which might have 
 guided it aright in its judgment upon the Canon. But it was, in 
 the first instance, the blindest hatred against the Protestants which 
 led the Church of Eome to adopt the most arbitrary decisions in 
 order to be as much as possible opposed to them, and then fur- 
 ther it was the consciousness of the ecclesiastical authority by 
 which the Canon first became a Canon, that induced the Council 
 
 1 De partib. leg. div. i. 3—7. Comp. Muenscher, iii. 88, 8". 
 
78 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 of Trent to the insolent decision : " Si quis libros integros cum 
 omnibus suis partibus prout in eoclesia catholica legi consueverunt 
 et in veteri vulgata latina editione babentur pro sacris et canoniois 
 non susceperit, anathema sit (Sess. IV. c. 1). To the anathema 
 was appended the index sacorum Hbrorum, " ne cui dubitatio su- 
 boriri possit, quinam siut qui ab ipsa synodo suscipiuntur." The 
 synod does not here certainly fall back upon tradition, though the 
 testimonies of the Fathers bearing on this point were not unknown 
 to it (see Marheinecke,s. 236) ; it contents itself with referring to the 
 use and wont in the Church in the matter of reading [Scripture], 
 with which in its proper relation there is no controversy, and the 
 authority of the Vulgate, which is in this way set forth in its full 
 extent as a canonically authentic book. Some later Catholic theo- 
 logians^ have attempted to show that the synod recognised tacitly 
 in their decision the distinction amongst the canonical writings 
 made by Augustine, and that consequently there is a division to be 
 made in accordance with this of the books into proto-canonical and 
 deutero-canonical writings- But had this been the case there 
 would have been an unavoidable necessity for referring to the 
 testimonies of the Fathers ; the weightiest element ol decision 
 would be relinquished, and that the more conspicuously from the 
 synod's referring to something else for support of its assertion. 
 Further, the opposition to the Protestants here is unmistakeable, 
 and hence it can hardly be supposed that the declaration of the 
 synod could be one which amounts substantially to what was the 
 opinion of Luther. In fine, the expression " sacris" leaves us with- 
 out the least doubt as to what they intended by canonical, and 
 completely supersedes the external definition which some might be 
 disposed to find in the word " canonicis." 
 
 But the opposition between the Catholic and Protestant^ Canons 
 has a deeper root than in this outward determination of the books 
 inserted in each. It is from a careful discrimination of what is 
 divine from what is human, and from the specific enunciation of 
 
 1 Comp. Jalin, Eiul. i. 140, fF., and the works cited by liim. It is remarkable that 
 Mbhler (Symbolik, s. 381, 4te Ausg.) has virtually overlooked this point. 
 
 2 With which that of the Greek Church agrees; comp. Metropbanis Critopnli couf. 
 c 7. 
 
 a As was very clearly shown by Chemnitz, Exam. Coucil. Trident, i, p. 49, sq. 
 
HISTORY OF THE CANON. 79 
 
 this/ that God is the highest authority for the faith of meu, that 
 Protestantism proceeds ; not conversely. On God's \vord, therefore, 
 as inspired by the Holy Ghost is the Church founded ; and her 
 authority rests so]t3ly and wholly on it ; not conversely (Eph. ii. 
 20). The Church is thus only the guardian and transmitter of the 
 divine revelations, the channel through which we have received 
 them., and the historical witness for the Canon.^ So also it is the 
 original Author of the Word, the Holy Ghost, who operates in the 
 Church and through the Word. In consequence of this internal 
 connection of the Spirit with the Word, it must evince itself to he 
 His work, and give testimony to its author. The same Spirit works 
 in us faith in its truth, and seals that in our hearts by a demonstra- 
 tion surpassing all human testimony. The authority of Scripture, 
 therefore, as the supreme rule of our faith, carries us back to God, 
 and depends from him. This has consequently been already expressed 
 in the Gallican (Confession) thus : " hos libros agnoscimus esse 
 canonicos, id est ut fidei nostrae normam et regulam habemus ; 
 idque non tantum ex coramuni ecclesiae consensu sed etiam multo 
 magis ex testimonio et intrinseca Spiritus S. persuasione : quo 
 suggerente docemur illos ab aliis libris ecclesiasticis discernere, qui, 
 ut sint utiles, non sunt tamcn ejusmodi, ut ex iis constitui possit 
 aliquis fidei articulus" (p. Ill, ed. Augusti). In like manner the 
 Conf. Belg. p. 172. 
 
 It was consequently the firm dogmatic conviction of the altoge- 
 ther peculiar worth of the holy Scriptures, and their relation to 
 the Church, which led the Protestants to reject the Aj)Ocrypha; 
 their criticism was in this matter guided by the humblest submis- 
 sion to the divine word, and by a believing acknowledgment of it. 
 With regard to the Old Testament this criticism was tlie more easily 
 exercised since they had only to betake themselves to the Hebrew 
 Codex (comp. Conf. Thorun. p. 414) to find the truth ; thus far 
 tliey had the authority of Christ and his Apostles entirely with 
 them, hence the sure concurrence with which all the Protestant 
 svmbols, so unlike the vacillating utterances of former centuries, 
 
 1 Comp. Calvin, Inst. i. 7; Heidej^ger. corp. theol. christ. i. p. 23, sq. Ger.iard, loci 
 tbeol. ii. p. 36, sq ed. Cotta, et Al. 
 
 2 Ecclesia siio testimonio eonfirmat, qtii libri sint vere Qtoirvtva-Toi, a Deo sibi tra- 
 diti et proinde canonici. Gerhard, I. cit. 
 
80 HISTORY OF THE CANON. 
 
 determinecl the Canon of the Old Testament — the Lutheran it is 
 true rather in effect (comp. Bretschneider, Dogm. i. 222), hut the 
 Eeformed in part expressly (see the Anglican, Gallican, and 
 Belgican Confessions). 
 
( 81 ) 
 
 CHAPTER SECOND. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 § 17. OBJECT DEFINED. 
 
 lu contradistinction to the (one-sided) jmreli/ empirical (which 
 simply gathers together materials in the form of a compilation) and 
 the simpli/ philosophical (a priori) method, each language must 
 be treated historicalli/ ; i.e. as rooted in historical soil, and as or- 
 ganically developing itself in a historico-progressive manner. 
 Only herein lies the just reconciliation of speculation and empiri- 
 cism, and only thus can a genuine scientific investigation of a lan- 
 guage he conducted. It is only by this means that the objectively 
 given commencement of the language is held in view, and its 
 character, formed under outward influences, is not mistaken ; and 
 at the same time the internal development of the entire lan- 
 guage, which essentially agrees with the general, finds due at- 
 tention. We thus apprehend a double science, but one both parts 
 of which are closely connected with each other — the one of 
 which is occupied with the elements of a language, and from 
 this advances historically to its structure {Grammar) ; the other 
 with the history of a language in general, or rather the his- 
 tory of a people itself, in so far as relates to the history of their 
 language, combined with the history of the preservation of the 
 language after the nation or the language itself became dead. 
 According to § 4 of the Introduction, the latter has place here 
 especially as respects the history of the Hebrew language. 
 
 F 
 
82 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Literature : Br. Walton in Biblia Polyglotta Prolegomena (ap- 
 peared first in 1657; edited apart by Datbe, Lips., 1777 [and 
 by Wrangbam, 2 vols. 8vo., Lond. 1828] ; Val. E. Loescber De 
 causis linguae Hebraeae, 1706 (a remarkable work for its day, 
 composed with mucb acuteness and ricb learning) ; Clericus, Dis- 
 sertatio de lingua Hebraica, in tbe Prolegomena in Pent. p. 1 , sqq. 
 Simonis Introd. Gramm. Crit. in ling. Hebr. Hal., 1753 ; Hetzel, 
 Gescbicbte der bebraiscbeu Spracbe und Literatur. Halle, 1776; 
 Gesenius, Gescbicbte der bebr. Spracbe und Scbrift. Leipz. 1815 ; 
 also bis Vorrede z. bebr. Worterbucb (a new and most ingenious 
 discussion of tbe wbole subject, and application of tbe recent 
 principles of grammatical investigation to tbis department; but 
 disfigured by an arbitrary neological criticism, and frequent apodic- 
 tic assertions, in place of satisfactory proofs and inferences) ; J. 
 Melcb. Hartmann, Aufangsgr. der bebr. Spr. (2te Ausg., 1819); 
 S. 409, ff. ; A. Tb. Plartmann, Linguist. Eiul.ind. A. T. Bremen, 
 1807 (got up witbout a proper plan, and tbe needful criticism, only 
 useful for some tbings) ; De Wette's Einl. § 30, ff. ; Hofl'mann in 
 tbe Allgem. Encyclop. Abtb. II. Tb. 3 ; Ewald, Krit. Gr. d. Heb. 
 Spr. s. 1, ff. 
 
 § 18. ORIENTAL LANGUAGES. 
 
 Among the peoples of Hitber-Asia lay the root-stem of those 
 languages to which the Hebrew belongs. These are commonly 
 called oriental, a name used even by Jerome, and one which may 
 be justified on tbe ground that these nations inhabited the best 
 known and most important of the Eastern countries. Already 
 older scholars, as the Buxtorfs, propose to assign these languages 
 to the Shemites, on the ground that they, and the Hebrews who 
 sprang from them, taking no part in the building of the tower of 
 Babel, retained the pure primeval language.^ More recent writers'^ 
 have for another reason, namely, that it is more exact, adopted the 
 
 1 See Stange, TLeol. Symmikta, i. s. 6. 
 
 2 First by ScLIoetzer (Repert. f. Bibl. u. Morgenland. Lit. Th. viii. 161) after Lira 
 Eiclihorn (Allg. Bibliotli. d. bib. cit. VI. v. 772, ff., and Gesch. der neuern Sprachenk. 
 I. 403). 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 83 
 
 name Semitic languages, which has been extensively approved of, 
 though also keenly opposed. ^ Certainly this appellation is so far 
 unsuitable, that it pre-supposes that all the Shemites belonged to 
 the same glossological division, whereas the Elamites, who were of 
 the race of Shem (Gen. x. 22), certainly spoke a Persian dialect, 
 whilst certain Hamites, such as the Cushites and Canaanites, spoke 
 the Semitic language. A community of language was by no means 
 the invariable consequence of a common origin among the different 
 tribes, such as they are described in Gen. x. The dispersion of the 
 people also (Gen. xi.) occasioned difference of language and such 
 confusion that the tribes originally allied could no longer under- 
 stand each other. In this sense the words in Gen. x. 5, 20, 31 
 ('iJ3'ilI?77 U?"^t^ DniiiUJT'S) ^wst be taken, inasmuch as by these 
 words, which anticipate2 and introduce the narrative in the 11th 
 chapter, the diversity of speech is made to depend upon the disper- 
 sion (immediately to be narrated), and by consequence on their 
 geographical position.^ We prefer, therefore, the appellation ori- 
 ental, as being least liable to misapprehension. Paying respect 
 to geographical position, to which it is necessary to have regard 
 for the linguistic knowledge of the district in wliich each of the 
 languages bearing a common character was spoken, we shall con- 
 sider first the dialect of the North, or rather the North-East of 
 Palestine, the Aramaic ; next the dialect of the South, the Ara- 
 bic ; and finally, the Palestinian, occupying a middle place both 
 geographically and linguistically between the other two. 
 
 § 19. ARAMAIC LANGUAGE. 
 
 The countries in the north of Palestine, stretching from the 
 Tigris to the Taurus, are comprehended in Scripture under the 
 name of Aram or Highland ; their inhabitants, the' Apa/jbatoc and 
 
 i See Fischer, Animad. ad. Welleri Gram. ; but especially Stange, Lib. cit. and Bd. iii. 
 s. 16, ff. Comp. Jen. Lib. Zeit. 1805, No. 182. 
 
 2 Comp. Ewald, Compos, der Genes, s. 213; Ranke, Untersuch. iiber den Pentat. s. 
 184, flf. 
 
 3 Hence apppears how erroneously Gesenius concludes when he says : " Since afS- 
 nity of language is one of the least fallacious guides to the aflBnity of peoples, it may 
 be doubted if the author of this ethnological scheme had authority for it," &c. Gesch. 
 d. Heb. Spr. s. 6. 
 
 r 2 
 
84 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 "ApLfxoi of the ancients, were of different nations (even in Scrip- 
 ture they are distinguished as Aram-Damascus, Padan-Arara, 
 Aram-Geschur, Aram-Zobah, &c.), and they passed historically 
 through the most diversified relations.^ The common language of 
 these people, in respect of its general character, as it is of all the 
 Semitic dialects the most northerly, so also is it the harshest (in 
 place of the softer labials j^, ^, ^j, it has the D and T sounds, it 
 does not soften the harsh pronunciation of the liquids by contraction, 
 &c.); the jwores I (it wants a complete vowel-system, hence as 
 verbal form ^n^ (heb. '2r\'3) noun-form "ir^j^ (^i^b. Ti^^^) ' ^^ ^^^ 
 corresponding with this a scanty conjugation-system ; it does not 
 carefully distinguish the formation of the weaker roots, but inter- 
 changes the verbs and nouns, ^'^ and pj^, iq and sq, &c. ; and 
 in general the leasi cultivated. 
 
 Already in the Old Testament we find this dialect denominated, 
 in opposition to the Palestinian, the Aramaic langua<je {x^Y^"^ 
 Is. xxxvi. 11 ; 2 Kings xviii. 26.) In the time of Isaiah, as ap- 
 pears from the passage just cited, educated Hebrews could speak 
 Aramaic, and conversely educated Aramaeans could speak Hebrew 
 (Is. xxxvi. 4, If.) ; whilst the common people understood only their 
 vernacular dialect. The hereditary foe of Israel, the Assyrian, is 
 described by the same propbet as a people of " stammering lip" (^^J^7 
 rrOto)' ^'- ^- speaking barbarously,^ as a people of a foreign language 
 (Sirri*^ titles) xxviii. 11. He reminds his contemporaries of the 
 fearful times of the Assyrian invasion, and speaks of the '* dumb 
 beckoning people [i.e. which cannot make itself intelligible by 
 speaking), the people of obscure lips, which one cannot understand, 
 of a stammering tongue without intelligibility."* Though, as the 
 
 1 [This is a mistake; AramGesbur nowhere occurs in Scripture, though Geshur is 
 on good grounds believed to have formed part of Aram.— Tb.] 
 
 2 See Geseniiis, Thes. Ling. Heb. I. 151, Hoffmann, Gram Syr., p. 1, sq., Winer, 
 Eealwbrlerb. 1. 92, ff. [also Kitto's Bib. Cycl. I., p. 197]. From this is to be distin- 
 guished the later ecclesiastical and talmudical usage, according to which Aramaeans 
 mean Heathens or Not-Jevps. See Hartmann, s. 141 ; Gesenius 1. c. s. 152. 
 
 3 So rightly the Syriac version p [\ V |l . \VnVo«^ and recently, Gesenius and 
 Hitzig, who might have adduced in their support the usage of the Syr. . , . v\ which 
 
 Bar Ali expressly explains by barbare loqui (see Michaelis on Castell. Lex. Syr. p. 470.) 
 
 4 See on this Hitzig. on Is. xxxiii. 19, who rightly explains "js'i: with which we may 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. ■ 85 
 
 tera of the captivity approached, there came to be a gi'eater inter- 
 course with these peoples, the Aramaic remained nevertheless a 
 speech, which, for the most part, the Hebrew people did not un- 
 derstand (Jer. V. 15). 
 
 Assyria was the most easterly region in which the Aramaic was 
 spoken. For the meaning given by some of the earlier scliolars to 
 the word j-^i^"^^, Is. xxxvi. 11, oi Assijrian (Simonis 1. c. p. 286) 
 is opposed to the constant usage of the language. This passage is 
 rather wholly in favour of the opinion we advocate ; in support of 
 which, also, may be adduced the fact demonstrated by recent in- 
 vestigations (especially those of Kreuser, Vorfr. iib. Homerosl. 39, 
 ff.), that the old Assyrian wriliny corresponds with that of the 
 peoples of western Asia, a circumstance confirmatory of the hj'po- 
 thesis of a similar affinity of languages. On the other hand, how- 
 ever, from the historical connection of Assyria with peoples of 
 Japhetic language, to wit at an early period with the Medes (see 
 Winer, Kealworterb. I. 117, ff.), there existed there also a Medo- 
 Persian stock of languages, of the closer relations, however, of 
 which to the Semitic we have no exact information. At the ut- 
 most we may infer from Gen. x. 10, 11, where Asshur appears as a 
 colony of Babylon, that there the Aramaic was the primal, abori- 
 ginal language. But that a Medo-Persic dialect^ must have in- 
 truded on this appears not only from the general historical proba- 
 bility of it, but also from the j) roper names which have come down 
 to us, as well of deities as of kings, which can be explained only 
 from the Persic. Thus the mythologic names, Tartak, Nihchas 
 
 i} , ^ 
 
 compare tlie Arab. properlv miitus (see Exc. Ham. p. 511, Soliult), tbeu 
 
 used to designate the impure, vitiated Arabic dialects, as opposed to tbe pure Eoraitic 
 (comp. Kor. Sur. xxvi. 195, 198, xli. 44), theu generally for barbarous, non-Arabic 
 tongues (Scbulteus, Monum. p. 59. Autara Moall. vs. 25. Act. ii. 9. Ar. Polyglott 
 comp. Herbelot, Orient. Bib., and the W. Agem.) The nt'ii """tty and r;5^S "."'S comp. 
 
 with tlie Arab name (•>;^'*>"* isir^ Cjl-^ {Ihic/ua Ai-abica perspicua) of the Ko- 
 raiiic dialects, see Pocock, Spec. hist. Ar. p. 151, comp. also the Ai-abic y percyrina 
 
 ac barhara non Arahka lingua loculus est, undoubtedy allied to » implicavit, conj. 
 
 IV. siluit, taciturmis fiiil (Freytag, Lex. Arab. II., p. 160, 161.) 
 
 1 That the Assyrian belonged generally to the Medo-Persian stod;, as Gesenius 
 thinks (Gesch. d. Hebr. Spr. s. 63), is thus certainly so far established. In Assyria 
 there existed indeed the same relation as in Babylon ; see the foil. §. 
 
86 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 (Gesenius on Is. ii. 347, ff.), the proper names, Phul, Tiglath- 
 Pilesar, Salmanassar, Sardanapal, Sanherib, &c. In the etymolo- 
 gical definitions of these, however, the greatest circumspection can- 
 not be sufficiently exercised ; and the counsel recently uttered by one 
 well skilled in such matters, that only the Old-Persic, the language 
 of the Zend-Avesta should be made use of in this case, deserves to 
 belaid to heart (Olshausen, Emendatt, z. A. T., s. 47). In this 
 inquiry also it is not to be overlooked that many proper names, the 
 only certain remains of the Old- Assyrian, are pure Semitic, such as 
 Adramelech, Annamelecb, Kabsakeh, &c. ; above all the certainly 
 technical expression ]-\"^i2l il^SP (^ Kings xvii. 30 ; seeHeugsten- 
 berg, Beitr. s. 160, IF.), for the Assyrian origin of which the ano- 
 malous and as yet unexplained form of the latter word speaks (see 
 more on this in next §.) 
 
 Proceeding farther to the West, we find Mesopotamia as a dis- 
 trict in which Aramaic was spoken. Even from the names Paddan 
 Aram (Aram the flat) of Genesis, SLud Aram Naharaim of the Old 
 Testament books, this might be inferred with much probability. 
 Strabo also states (II. c. 58) that the people on both sides of the 
 Euphrates spoke the same dialect ; and the same thing is con- 
 firmed by positive remains of the dialect used there. Of these the 
 first place is due to that in Genes, xxxi. 49, where Laban the Me- 
 sopotamian calls a monument i^Ji^int^ '^T*' which Jacob the 
 
 Hebrew calls ^i^^^i- The former form is pure Aramaic (3^ 
 
 jZ.050T.CD), and only the punctuation, to which the )^ for instance is 
 due, is Hebraistic (comp. De Dieu, crit. sacr. p. 18). — We may 
 here also take account of the lays of the Mesopotamian prophet, 
 Balaam, only that they, as respects their principal characteristics, are 
 Hebraic, and might in this form have actually proceeded from 
 Balaam in consequence of the relation already noticed between the 
 Aramaeans and the Hebrews, especially as their chief design was 
 for Hebrews.^ It cannot appear strange, that in spite of himself, 
 
 x 7 . •» 
 
 1 The . ^mi / . «-^ of the Syrian writers, see Act3ii.9, Pesch. AssemaniBibl., 
 Or. 1.402. 
 
 2 This appeurs to me more probable than the opiuiou that they were at a later period 
 translated from the Aramaic into Hebrew, as Hamacker thinks (see Bibl. crit. Nova. 
 Lugd. Bat., 1827, vol. iii.,p. 324, sij.) The very Aramaisms which appear in these pass- 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 87 
 
 some notes of his vernaculai- dialect should have escaped from the 
 bard ; and I believe that I have found several of those, at least 
 more of them than of late some others have been disposed to fiud.^ I 
 reckon the following as such : HtZ^nnn Num. xxiii. 9, for the com- 
 mon Niphal-form (Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. 205, 213) ; iji^ft xxiv. 17 
 (Gesenius de Pent. Samar. p. 3C) ; pi^ an Aramaic form, comp. 
 rM^liJ Lament, iii. 47 (hebr. 'j'if^^y ^erem. xlviii. 45, where the 
 prophet substitutes for the obscure and foreign word one in pure 
 Hebrew) ; '^^'^J^ xxiv. 20, 24, comp. with "y^'ij*^ perditis, Buxtorf. 
 Lex. Chald. Eabb. Talm. p. 7 ; Winer, Lex. p. 9 (hebr. ni^^^' 
 freq. in the Pentateuch);^ Djl^!? xxiv. 3, 15, for the Heb. njlS 
 (comp. Df^tlJ' verforavit Mishna t. IV. ed. Surenhus, and e.spe- 
 
 cially JkuA^, haruspex, Norberg, Lexid. cod. Nab. p. 264, 
 who, however, erroneously derives it from QJ-jD) > "^^tij' ^'^ ^^^^ 
 sense of look., xxiii. 9 ; xxiv. 17 (thus elsewhere only in Job, 
 Hosea, Jeremiah, and Canticles; see more under) .^ In my opi- 
 nion, also, it is only by supposing an Aramaism that the much- 
 vexed passage xxiv. 23 can be satisfactorily explained : n"^n"^ y^ 
 vi^ i^StpJ^' ^^^^ \"^Q^Q the words *n^ p^ij-j cannot, according to the 
 usage of the language, mean anything else than to revive, to re- 
 cover from anything (2 Kings i. 2 ; viii. 8) ; and q^ is here 
 
 simply after the Aram. 1^0.*, tooiind, hence smart, sujfering 
 in general ; comp. Castel. Lex. Syr. p. 899, Mich. Norberg, lib. 
 
 ages are opposed to this opinion, because in a translation they would have been avoided, 
 also the extremely peculiar form of the whole. 
 
 1 Hirzel de Chaldaismi bibl. orig. et auctor. crit. p. 14: " in oraculo Bileami — pauca 
 leguntur vocabula Arainaea." 
 
 2 Geseuius, it is true, takes this for a participial form with an abstract signification 
 (Thes. p. 6, Lehrg. s. 488). But his rule is incorrect; see Ewald, s. 237, who conse- 
 quently would translate nasi by Spoiler. This, however, does not suit the n'^'^hs of 
 ver. 24, where the meaning plainly is, " His end (goes) even to (utter) destruction." 
 
 3 Winer gives the word a threefold fundamentally diverse meaning; but incorrectly. 
 All hang together thus : The ground-meaning is to ai-ise, to leap forward (so in Heb. 
 
 Hos. xiii. 7, comp. in Arab. i.-. Monum. p. 24, ed. Scbulteus), particularly for the 
 
 sake of seeing or observing something. 2. To spring, to dance in general (so in Syriac). 
 3. To sing (in dancing). 4. In the enfeebled meaning fo 70, tojoirrney (so in Heb. and 
 
 Arab. 1 ). 
 
88 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 cit. p. 245. We may translate : " Who can recover from his 
 wound (that inflicted on him), Almighty ?" The expression in 
 xxiv. 17, l^pi^*'?;^ ^315 '^''^y ^^^^ justice also he placed in this class, 
 as having reference to astrological science, and hence aptly suit- 
 ing Mesopotamia (comp. Clericus in loc, and especially Dan. viii. 
 10, with Creuzer's remarks Symh. Th. III. s. 74, and Th. IV. s. 
 421, fF.) — Besides these what we have of the language of Meso- 
 potamia is of little importance. The Di3"^jn' whose worship was 
 undouhtedly indigenous there, according to Genes, xxxi. 19, flF., 
 XXXV. 2, 3, are of very doubtful etymological origin. The few re- 
 maining proper names belonging to that region (Beor, Pethor, 
 Balaam, Hazael, Cushan Eishataim,^ &c.), have little of linguistic 
 importance, as they appear to be hebraistically written. 
 
 § 20. CONTINUATION. LANGUAGE OF BABYLON. 
 
 A work written at the time when the Hebrews stood in the 
 nearest relation to Babylon, makes mention of two tongues as indi- 
 genous there under the names of the language of the Chaldees, 
 Dan. i. 4, and the Aramaic language, Dan. ii. 4 (see my Com- 
 mentary on this book s. 22, fF. and s. 55). We have thus here also 
 a mixed language presented to us, and must endeavour more closely 
 to determine the particulars of each. 
 
 1. With reference to the Chaldaic language, properly so called, 
 it must have belonged to the Japhetic branch, and have possessed 
 affinities with the Medo-Persian, as appears — i. iVom the deriva- 
 tion of the Chaldees as a northern people, originating in the dis- 
 trict round the Black Sea, and proceeding from the Carduchian 
 mountains adjoining to Armenia, whence they made an inroad upon 
 Babylon, and obtained the supremacy there (Winer, Realworterb. 
 T. 253, fF.). This assertion would indeerl be erroneous were that 
 of Olshausen well-founded, viz., that such a hypothesis is not 
 capable of historical proof, and that they were rather a Hamitic 
 
 1 This last name is especially obscure, and is generally not riglitly understood. 
 Gesenius renders it "doubled wickedness,'" Wbrterb. sub. voc. To me it appeal's an 
 anomalous and foreign word, and to be in affinity witb tbe Arab title aJLwIj-!! \ii 
 
 Praeses utriusque Rnisafus (s. rcginiinis), Abulfeda, Annnl. II. p. lOO, and Reiske's 
 note thereon, p. 659. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. .89 
 
 people who had mingled with the Semitic Babylonians (Emend, z. 
 A. T. s. 41, fF.). But the appeal to the obscure Arphachsad of 
 Gen. X. 22 is more than problematical ; a more difficult and sig- 
 nificant passage is Gen. xxii. 22, where Chesed is brought for- 
 ward as a Semite among the collateral relations of Abraham. 
 Winer (Lib. cit. p. 259) has tried to get rid of this passage by the 
 remark, that it possesses no historical weight. So also Gesenius, 
 Comment zur. Jes. I. 748. But that it is strictly historical ap- 
 pears from its agreement with Gen. xi. 28,^ where mention is made 
 of Ur Ghasdim, which is certainly to be sought for in the northern 
 part of Mesopotamia, since Abraham, intending to go to Canaan, 
 had first to betake himself to Charan in southern Mesopotamia in 
 order to reach Palestine, for we cannot suppose that he reversed 
 this course, and travelled from south to north, which he must have 
 done if Olshausen's theory were correct, and Ur lay in Babylon. 
 Besides Ur is a Semitic word, as even Gesenius has not failed to 
 perceive (Thes. I. p. 55). Consequently originally the Chaldeans 
 were Semites, and dwelt in the northern part of Mesopotamia, 
 where they could easily reach the districts, out of which we again 
 see them proceeding, at a later period, in the south. In this way, 
 and in this alone, can it be explained how they entirely disappear 
 from history up to the time of Isaiah, and how they re- appear in 
 the way in which the Prophet (xxiii. 13) presents them. That 
 during such a period the original Semitic dialect of the people could 
 pass over to another, in consequence of their geographical position, 
 requires no proof, because of the multitude of similar cases. — ii. 
 The Babylonish proper names still remaining to us, as well as some 
 other terms, bear a character evidently the opposite of Semitic for- 
 mations. Hence the difficulty of determining them etymologically, 
 as we cannot arbitrarily set out from the Neo-Persic (see § 19). 
 The older scholars, such as Hottinger (in the Smegma Orient.), 
 L. de Dieu, Pfeiffer, Eeland, &c., have done much for the com- 
 bination of the Persic with these names, and the matter has anew 
 been investigated by Lorsbach (Archiv. f. Morgenland. Lit. Th. I. 
 and XL), whose interpretation Gesenius adopts as " extremely 
 agreeable and pleasant" (Gesch. d. Heb. Spr. s. 63.) Von Bohlen, 
 
 1 This passage has so embarrassed Hartmanu (Liug. Einl. s. LOO) that he holds the 
 word Biraa for an addition made during the period of the Chahlean supremacy ! Tliat 
 means— anything ratlier tlian give up! 
 
90 HISTORY or THE 
 
 in his Symbolse ad Interpret. S. cod. ex Lingua Pers. (Lips. 1822), 
 has made many attempts at explaining them, but for the most part 
 his are arbitrary conjectures.^ After much careful comparison of 
 the Babylonish words in question, I have adopted the following 
 rules as the surest guides. 
 
 a. Those words which are plainly compounded with Aramaic 
 forms are not forthwith to be interpreted as Persic, but the Ara- 
 maic etymology must be first taken into account as the surest 
 guide. Thus the words Qii^^rT' TO?' HSri' which are plainly 
 Aramaic (Kleinert s. 222, 3). So also -j^j^ in compounded words 
 like Abednego, &c,, is undoubtedly Semitic. Also -^-y^ appears 
 to belong to the same, and the forms "^^jj.^ and 1D^5 ^^ ^® ^"^^ 
 hebraising. 
 
 h. As relates to the formation of these words it is undeniable 
 that many of them have an Aramaic termination, the ^]-\ of the 
 Stat, empliat. as m Artachsasta, &c. (Simonis. Onomast. p. 565). 
 On the other hand, there are others having a Persic ending, espe- 
 cially the Diminutive-ending, the "ri final, as in Aramaic the Diminu- 
 tive-ending is wanting (see Hoffmann, Gr. Syr. p. 25 L) The fre- 
 quent use of this termination (as in Tjllp' 'T]'i")p> *TJt2J''t2' Tj^^'Tll?' 
 'n"^D' i^^"^j?On' 11"^1i^' '^^•) '^^ust be explained by the rule which 
 Ewald finds applicable also to the Arabic, viz. " Diminutiva sen- 
 sum etiara teneri exprimunt et hlandientis, unde vel ad verba ad- 
 mirationis et prouomina transferuntur" (Gr. Arab. i. 156). Comp. 
 also Hitzig on Is. p. 436. 
 
 c. The Aramaic and Persic forms are often united, which is easily 
 explainable by the common use of the thence-resulting mingling of 
 the two languages. Thus, asBelshazzar (liJt^^\2J7l, which maybe 
 an Aramaic form^) had another name Nabonned, since Bel, the Ara- 
 maic Nebo, was the Chaldaic name of an idol (similarly Nabonas- 
 sar and Belesis, Kleinert, p. 218), both formationswould be melted 
 down in the same word. Clearly is this the case in "i;ip"Tl5^ (Gre- 
 senius on Is. ii. p. 343) ; on the analogy of which other forms are 
 
 1 See in reply to .him Kleinert, in the Dorptscbeu Beitr. I. 213, ff. 
 
 2 The termination '^SS'J is only another way of writing "'^S'^b, and signifies illus. 
 trious, Imided chief. How incorrect the Hebrews were in the writing of such foreign 
 names, and how they allowed themselves hebraising alterations, is manifest from 
 the word ''as'j"j'5a, wliich was only a various spelling of the other. 
 
 3 
 
OKKIINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. U 1 
 
 to be explained, such as p'lUJ^li' ^^^o is the deliverer (^f'ltjj, 
 liberare, Siraouis, p. 573) ; Nebucadnezzar from Nebo (tt^^^, see 
 above), ^7 or ^'^^ (comp. n^^^l' Belus is Lord), "^^^j Nebo is 
 the glorious ruler, &c. 
 
 d. In the case of appellatives, as the Chaldees were the domi- 
 nant race, it may be most safely presumed that the names of 
 offices are foreign, as also the analogy of some of them would lead 
 us to decide ; thus rrptD^I' which is equivalent to ■^^'^^ (see my 
 Comment, on Daniel, s. 34).^ So also Achashdarpanin, Satraps 
 Dan. iii. 2, concerning which we learn expressly from Esth. iii. 12, 
 viii. 9, ix. 3, that it is a Persic name (see my Comment, s. 97"). 
 Further, as the Chaldees were also a priestly caste (see my Com- 
 ment, s. 48 [where evidence for this assertion is adduced from 
 Herod. I. 181, 183 ; Diodorus Siculus, II. 24, 29, &c.]), we may 
 most securely derive the words relating to this department, which 
 do not admit of an Aramaic etymology, from the Persic, such as 
 the names ;(q, Magus (Comment, s. 46),;i;?ipf3,/(:^oi/or the gods 
 
 (ibid. s. 25), &c. 
 
 2. Not less difficult is tlie question as to tbe constitution of the 
 Aramaic spoken in Babylon. That in Babylon a peculiar dialect 
 of that language existed, cannot be doubted. The only question is 
 whether our knowledge of that dialect is of such a kind as to enable 
 us to form any judgment upon it. J. D. Michaelis answers in the 
 negative (Abhandlung von d. Syr. Spr. § 2), and he has been fol- 
 lowed in this by Hezel (Gesch. d. Heb. Spr. s. 342, ff.), Jahn 
 (Aram. Sprachl. § i) and others. Of late, Hupfeld has avowed 
 the same conviction ;3 his principal reasons are the following : 
 
 a. " The documents from which our knowledge of tbe Babylo- 
 nian dialect is gleaned are purely Jewish, and not Babylonish." 
 But this reason proceeds on the unfounded assumption that we are 
 without any genuine Babylonian documents, whereas such are to 
 
 1 [In the place referred to, Hiivernick explains Melzar as a name of office, from a Per- 
 sic word signifying vini princeps. Eabsbabeli signifies nearly the same, viz, pinceriiarum 
 princeps,— Tk.] 
 
 2 [Here the author shows (following De Sacy, Hengstenberg, and Gesenius) that 
 Achashdarpanin is from the Pars. Kslutr, a "kingdom," and Ban, "guardian," and 
 signifies, " ruler of a province. "^ — Tr.] 
 
 3 Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1830, s. 291, ff. He has been followed by De Wette, Einl. s. 
 51, flf., 4te Aiif. Tlie other side has been espoused by Winer, Realworterb. T. s, 147, 
 note. 
 
92 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 be found in the book of Daniel (ch. iv.), as well as in Ezra (cb. 
 iv., &c.) That these would be faithfully preserved there can be no 
 reason to doubt, as they consist of important edicts issued by kings. 
 
 h. " There is lack of historical evidence of such a difference of 
 dialect ; throughout the ancient writers there is mention of only 
 one language in the whole East, as far as the Tigris." This rea- 
 son is still feebler than the preceding; to prove it out of Strabo, 
 Xenophon, and other Greeks, is impossible, because they could not 
 possibly have enough of experience and knowledge of the^e allied 
 dialects to detect their nicer differences. 
 
 c. " We find no marks in the language of such peculiarities as 
 would constitute a special dialect. All variations from the Syriac 
 are either purely imaginary or of Hebrew origin." To reply to this 
 argument by simply collecting, as Hoffmann has done (Gr. Syr. 
 p. II, sq.), the evident departures of the Chaldaic, viewed as the 
 Judaic-Babylonic dialect from the new-Aramaic or the Syriac, is 
 fruitless. This Judaic-Babylonian dialect must be treated of not 
 merely in its relation to the Syriac, but also to the Hebrew. Now, 
 if we find departures from the Syriac which are of such a kind 
 that they cannot be derived from the Hebrew, or be viewed as cor- 
 ruptions of the Hebrew usage, we may justly regard these as Baby- 
 lonish peculiarities, on account of the historical connection of the 
 Jews with Babylon, especially when we find these in the must an- 
 cient Jewish documents which we possess of that age. Hence I 
 regard the following in this light : the different prevailing mode of 
 
 7 7 7, 
 
 writinff words, as 'ij^'), Syr. ^^1, Jli^pS' ^J^- ^'^^'^^ &c. ; (jram- 
 matical forms, as the pronoun "re-^ 'tj-j with Ezra, *^, j-j^i with 
 
 Daniel (in the Syr. we have for both poi), where the origin from 
 the Hebrew is the more doubtful in consequence of these demonstra- 
 tives being properly onomatopoietic ; the wholly peculiar form of 
 the numeral "ip^j") i^^ji^ri' ^^^ ™y Comment, on Daniel, s. 185, 
 
 •X 
 
 ff. ■} infinitiveformations with ^- — in place of the Syr. o — , 
 
 1 [This vonl occurs only in Daniel. It is not to be confounded with "Tivri, ieriius, 
 as many dictionaries teach, hut is intentionally thus formed, and has a special meaning; 
 this appears as well from the fact that Daniel knows the common word (ii. 39), as from 
 the fact that he uses this one only in this chapter in a definite and special connection. 
 It is to be viewed as having the adjectival formation denoting desreiil or ocaqniliou (here 
 the latter), and to be chosen here as noman officii. The ancient Rabbins knew this; 
 Jerome is indebted to thom for his weighty note, vol tertius post me vcl iiniis e trihus 
 
ORIGINAL LANGTAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 03 
 
 where certaiuiy the affinity of the dialects consists in the endeavour 
 to assimilate the infinitive to substantive-formations, but the diver- 
 gence may nevertheless be derived from the Hebrew, to which the 
 Syriac is as near as the Babylonian ; moreover, peculiar pas- 
 sive formations, as ^j-^'in distinguished from ij^'^n (^^e Comment, 
 on Daniel, s. 112)1, the altogether fectdiar passive-form ~)'i^h 
 (see Buxtorf. Gr. Chald. p. 66, sq.), contrary to the Syriac usage, 
 in which the passives were formed by the addition of syllables, 
 whereas in the Babylonic (as also in the Hebrew) they were formed 
 by an internal vowel-change, but in a manner quite different from 
 the Hebrew ; the status emjihat. ^?i — ; in Syr. this has a simple 
 
 (, — , which contracted form does not appear to have penetrated 
 into the Babylonian Aramaic. — To these are to be added seve- 
 ral words of a peculiar kind relating to Babylonish customs, 
 arrangements, mythology, &c., and the use of which must espe- 
 cially belong to this dialect. Thus the judical expressions j«^^^5 
 and Jii^5 in Ezra, of which the former occurs also in analogous 
 cases in the rabbinical writings (see Danz, Rabbin, enucleat. p. 88) 
 though not exactly in the same sense, whence the latter cannot be 
 explained from anything in He!)rew or Aramaic, but only from 
 the Arabic ; so also p^spi in the sense of to fall, to lie doivn 
 
 T T ., 
 
 (Comment, z. Daniel, s. 44) ;' expressions like -^"i^, of Genii, Dan. 
 iv. 10, xXTv> (Comment, s. 177, fF.) f the interchange of the ^ and 
 
 T T : 
 
 principibiis quos alibi (Dan. vi. 1) TpicrTaras le(jimus. — From the passage referred to 
 in the author's work on Dan.— Tk.] 
 
 1 [ De Dieu has correctly distinguished between the forms -^Ti^ti and ^rin, " turn 
 •nrt'i'n legendum erat, ut ex Dan. v. 3 liquet, unde et infinitivus ninifiV, ibid. ver. 2. At 
 1^'^1^ passivum esse liquet ex Dan. vi. 17, las nilnirn mh, et allatus est lapis unus." 
 This hophal-form is peculiar to Daniel (the Targumists use instead the Ithpaal), and 
 it was also uukuowu in the earlier Palestinian dialect, as the liipbil-form ^i^nn, Is. xxi. 
 14, Jer. xii. 9, shows." Loc cit. — Te.] 
 
 2 [In the place referred to H. rejects the explanation of Calvin, " somnus ejus factio 
 est super ipsum, /.£•. iterum dormire coepit," and that of Junius, " quum somnus ejus 
 esset in ipso, i.e. quum adhuc somuum ceperat," as giving an iunpposite and feeble 
 sense. De Dieu's construction, " somnus factus est contra ipsum, i.e. adversus ei et 
 molestus," he regards as intolerably harsh and improbable. That of Bertholdt and 
 Winer, " Sleep went away from him," he rejects as grammatically unauthorised and 
 prefers the original meaning of the verb, " sleep /e/Z upon him." — Tr.] 
 
 3 [" The word mfih, which is ilira^XeySfxevov, is to be explained from the Arabic, where 
 
94 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 "] in the words "fyfxi and Itb^ ^^^ many others (ibid. s. 55 and 
 
 221.)^ 
 
 We may thus concede to the opponents that the hitherto che- 
 rished idea of two dialects strongly opposed to each other, an 
 eastern Aramaic and a western (Chaldee and Syriac) is not true 
 to the extent that all forms which we find in the hehraising 
 Jewish documents are to be referred to the former. But there is in 
 it this much, that many vrords can be explained only on the hypo- 
 thesis of a peculiar Babylonian language, which undoubtedly is to 
 be viewed as a sub-dialect of the great Aramaic branch. We must 
 beware, however, of being led by the congruity of the vocalisation 
 of this Aramaic dialect with that of the Hebrew to pronounce on it 
 a general decision, as for instance Winer does when he sets forth 
 the Chaldee as the purer and softer, the Syriac as the rougher and 
 harsher dialect. The difference cannot be of the kind here speci- 
 fied, especially as both languages enjoyed equally slender cultiva- 
 tion through literary effort ; in such a case the existing traces of 
 difference are not such as to justify us in pronouncing such a judg- 
 ment upon them. 
 
 ^21. CONTINUATION. ARAMAIC DIALECT IN THE NORTH OF 
 PALESTINE. 
 
 Did we know the dialect of Palmyra (Tadmor) which lay six 
 days' journey from Babylon and three from Damascus, more fully 
 and exactly than it can possibly be determined from the fragments 
 of inscriptions"^ belonging to this city still remaining, we should be 
 able to detect in it a transition dialect between that of Babylon 
 and that of west Syria. Palmyra was the ancient commercial 
 centre between Hither and Middle Asia (Hartmann 1. c. s. 232, ff.) 
 The inscriptions belong to the first three centuries of the Christian 
 sera, and are for the most part Bilingual, Aramaic, and Greek, and 
 with many Greek names and words interwoven. Hence we may 
 
 • I mea.na foetuit, ohscoenus fuit, and hence ^] vulva. It stands in the 
 
 Chald. for the Heb. •a-Jh'<-i, concubine."]— Tb. 
 
 1 [its is for Vis abiit ; y^fn is equivalent to sshV, v. 4.]— Tk. 
 
 2 See the full literature on this subject in O. G, Tychsen by Hartmann, II. 2, p. 
 254, flf. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 95 
 
 conclude that the original is not the Greek but the Aramaic/ and 
 that the authors were not Jews but heathens." The words most 
 distinctly occurring in them, particularly those adduced by Koppe 
 in his admirable attempts to decipher them, for the most part con- 
 nect themselves with the Babylonian dialect, and so serve to con- 
 firm what has been urged in the preceding section as to the exist- 
 ence of a dialect peculiar to Babylon. 
 
 It is difficult to determine how far the dominion of the Aramaic 
 extended in the North of Palestine towards Asia Minor. Of the 
 Solymi, the original inhabitants of Lysia and Pisidia, Choerilus, 
 as quoted by Josephus (cont. Ap. I. 22 : fyXwcrcrav fMev ^olpcaaav 
 cLTTo (TTOfjbdTcov d(j)tevre'i) says that they spoke Aramaic (the same 
 language as the Phenicians), and Bochart (Phaleg p. 378, sq.) 
 has with great diligence collected the traces of it in proper names 
 belonging to that land and people. Since the Phenicians esta- 
 blished many colonies everywhere, even in Hither Asia, their lan- 
 guage must also have undoubtedly spread widely there ;^ still the 
 connection with Greece and the Persian supremacy left in Asia 
 Minor only a few traces of the Semitic language. On the Cappa- 
 docians, Bochart(p. 590) pronounces: " Cappadoces Syris accenseo 
 non ratione originis, nam erant ex stirpe Gomer, sed ratione ser- 
 monis,qui a Syro iwn ahhorrehat." Certainly the Greeks (Herod. 
 I. 72, V. 49) as well as the Persians (ibid. VII. 72) reckoned the 
 Cappadocians among the Syrians (AevKocrvpoi), and probably they 
 once spoke Aramaic. Under the Persian dominion, however, they 
 seem, with the Persian worship (Strabo lit. XV. p. 404), to have 
 adopted also the Persian language ; see Strabo 1. XII. iniL Ac- 
 cording to Herodotus (VII. 72) even the name KaTnraSo/cai ap- 
 pears to have been derived from the Persians. 
 
 Aramaic was spoken along the Syrian coast, or in Syria pro- 
 perly so called, of which the principal country was Phoenicia, 
 and this from its proximity to the Hebrews is of especial 
 moment for us ; it is to be viewed along with its colony Car- 
 thage, the inhabitants of which are called by the Greeks sim- 
 ply Phenicians (Polyb. I. 19 ; III. 78; VI. 52, &c.) The 
 
 1 See in opposition to Hartmann.Kopp, Bilder unci Schriften 11. 255, fF. 
 
 2 Koppl.c. s. 269,ff. 
 
 3 " Phoeuices cum suis coloniis Hebraismuni ubique disseminaiunt." Bochart, p. 
 36L 
 
96 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 intimate aifinity of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine with the 
 Phenicians, who called themselves also Canaanites (Sanchu- 
 niathon ap. Euseb. Praepar. Evang. I. c. 10)^ leads to the presump- 
 tion of an affinity in point of language, and this is fully confirmed 
 by the remains of the Phenician tongue.' This relationship is 
 made the most of by those who would find in the Phenician 
 nothing but pure Hebrew.^ But the whole geographical position 
 of the country points rather to a passing over of the Aramaic lan- 
 guage into the Hebrew, and hence to a language of a mixed cha- 
 racter. This is confirmed by the following considerations : 1. We 
 find that in the north of Palestine there was a dialect approximating 
 to the Aramaic (see below) and nothing is more probable than that 
 this was that of the Phenicians ; 2. The testimonies of the older 
 writers correspond to this ; of which we may adduce the sentence 
 of Jerome (ad Jes. xxiv. 21) : Poeni . . , quorum lingua He- 
 braeae linguae magna ex parte conjinis ;" and Quaest. Hebr. ad 
 Genes., where he calls the Punic language conterminous with the 
 Hebrew. Less weight attaches to the passages adduced on this 
 head from Augustin {e. gr. De verbo Domini Serm. 35 : " istae 
 linguae sibi significationis qiiadam vicinitate sociantur) as they 
 can be regarded only as the utterances of a witness unskilled in 
 Hebrew, and one-sided. — 3. The remains of the Phenician most 
 evidently confirm this idea. To these belong the ^ as an article 
 in place of pf a verging towards the status emphaticus of the Ar- 
 maeans ; the i^ praef. in place of "^tjjj*^ ; the exchange of the ^ for ]-| 
 (on inst<3ad of q\2?' Bellermann, Erkliir. der Punisch. St. d. Poe- 
 nulus I. 39.) -j-iji instead of -('i|\2j Plutarch, Sylla, ]-|^]-\ for ^^^Vdj' 
 Kopp 1. 2G7, also tlj^^tl^ (Augustin. ad Ep. ad Rom. 7, 3) ; the 
 plural-ending y—, besides that in q — {"THt^ pT^tZ^' Bellermann 
 II. 28, ff.) ; harsh and rough pronunciations, ]-\3i^ for ]-|ni<^ (^s- 
 senius, Thes. 1, p. 66 — in Hebrew a rare exchange, comp. i^]^ 
 and ^^TOi^) ^^- — Among the Carthaginians, however, we must 
 
 1 The rather that the Scriptural accouut (Gen. x. 18) of the constant residence of the 
 Phoenicians or Canaanites in their country, as opposed to the statement of some of the 
 classics that they had immigrated thither from the Red Sea, is alone worthy of credit. 
 See Heugstenberg De rebus Tyriorum, p. 93, sq. 
 
 2 Let any one only glance over the Phenician words given by Gesenius, Gesch. d. 
 Heb. Spr. s, 224. 
 
 ^ As Bochart and others, G. G. Tyscheu, most immoderately of all. See on tht other 
 side Kopp, Lib. cit. I. 221 ; IL 182, flf. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 97 
 
 assume the existence of a mixed dialect, since a portion of them had 
 mingled with the Libyans {'' Lihyphoenices, mistum punicum Afris 
 genus," Liv. XXI. 22, see more in Miinter's Kelig. d. Karthager, 
 s. 107, ff.), and thus oq the proper Carthaginian another element 
 would be engrafted. Hence Walton has (Prolegg. p. 91) pro- 
 posed to derive from this source those Carthaginian words which 
 are not explainable from the Hebrew, and Sickler (Kadmus s. 
 LXXIII.) would find also in Libya as in Ethiopia Semitic lan- 
 guage and rites. But, in opposition to this are the express evi- 
 dences which attest not only that the Libyans and the Ethiopians 
 were different peoples, but also the great linguistic divergence of the 
 Carthaginians from the Libyans ; see Miinter, Lib. cit. s. 99, ff. 
 
 Of the old Phoeuician literature it is an exaggerated representation 
 to set it forth as a cultivated and complete body of learning.^ 
 Eor this the commercial spirit of the people was far from being 
 favourable. Certainly there were Archives, especially Temple- 
 Archives, among them (Joseph, cont. Ap. I. 6, 17),^ but in them 
 there was found nothing beyond Annals, the histories of the people 
 and of particular towns written by the priests.^ The ancients also 
 speak only of historical accounts, and consequently the Phoenicians 
 had, like all ancient nations at all civilized, their Annalists. As 
 such Sanchoniathon may be cited, whose history, as translated by 
 Philo of Byblos, a contemporary of Hadrian, we possess in frag- 
 ments preserved by Eusebius, though not free from interpolations ;* 
 and as later writers of History, Theodotos, Hypsicrates, and Mo- 
 chos, from whom the Greek or the Greek- writing historians (Me- 
 nander of Ephesus, Chaitos, Dios, Hieronymus, Philostratus) drew 
 their materials and translated (Bochart 1. cit. p. 861, sq.) Car- 
 thage also, of whose Bibliotheca Pliny speaks (Hist. Nat. xviii. 3), 
 had for the most part only historians (Charon, Hannibal, Hanno),' 
 yet a few philosophers also ; comp. Miinter lib. cit. 151, ff., who 
 
 1 Spe e.g. Bellermann, lib. cit. 1. 11, ff. 
 
 2 He says : eo-ti irapa Tvpioii iroWuiu Ltu'V ypafifiaTa, 6t)fioa-i.a yiypafjifxiva, Kal 
 irECpvXay/xtva \iav £Tn/iE\(os iTEpl tuiv irap' avToi'S yi.voixiv(ov Kal Trpoi aWfJAous 
 TTpayQivroov p.vrifxi\i al^Loiv, and speaks of toIc dpxaloi's tmv ^owIkuii/. 
 
 3 We raay refer the Kiriath-Sepber of Jos. X7. 1.5, to tbis, but bardly can we here 
 with Bellermann seek for "learning," or "learned institutions." 
 
 4 See Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. I. 222, ed. Harless, Comp. Bochart, Phaleg. p. 855, eq. 
 Buddpus, Hist. V. T. I. 981, sq. 
 
 5 Comp. Hug, Hannonis Periplus Freyb. 1808. 
 
 G 
 
98 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 says excellently, " the Canhaginian government appears, however, 
 not to have known the true worth of the sciences ; otherwise they 
 would not have attempted, and that at a late period, to restrain 
 them by that hostile decree, which indeed did not long last, that no 
 Carthaginian should learn Greek (Justin. Hist. XX. 5.) Also a 
 few though scanty notices are to be found of Carthaginian art and 
 artists. For the most part it was undoubtedly by the Greeks that the 
 seeds of cultivation were attempted to be scattered among the 
 Punic people, and for this the many relations of Carthage with 
 Sicilia, Lower Italy, and even Greece Proper, must have afforded 
 frequent opportunity." 
 
 The remains of the Phoenician tongue are to be found in the fol- 
 lowing monuments : 
 
 1. The Punic passages in the Poenulus of Plautus, the longest 
 of which, Act. V. sc. 1, 2, is in a corrupted form from being 
 written in Latin characters, and being consequently, by ignorant 
 transcribers, variously perverted ; hence very differently interpreted, 
 but most felicitously by Bellermann. The Latin translation ap- 
 pended, and which is both incomplete and very free, is not perhaps 
 the work of Plautus himself, but of some other Roman who under- 
 stood Punic ; it cannot therefore well be a very late addition^ (Bel- 
 lermann L 19,ff., II. 41, ff.) 
 
 2. The Phoenico-punic glosses which are found in ancient 
 writers, partly appellatives chiefly relating to objects of commerce, 
 Asiatic productions, &c. (as e-g. ixvppa -^>^^, vapho<i 'yy^, e/3evo<i 
 Qi^lH' '^"°"<^^" ^i^1^^'?' f<:^^^V (Calmus), pj|3p, &c.), partly proper 
 names which again are either really Phoenician proper names, or 
 mythological names received also by the Greeks ; the latter more 
 naturally since the Pelasgians and their worship were of Hither- 
 Asiatic, of Phoenician origin.^ In this respect much may be gained 
 from those more recent mythological works, which acknowledge 
 the necessity of an acquaintance with the Oriental myths for the 
 understanding of those of Greece, though there is also here much 
 
 1 This is so mncli tbe more probable because the passages in PLautus suffered many 
 interpolations for the sake of theatrical representatiou ; comp. Osaiin, Analect. Crit. p. 
 141, s(i. Niebuhr on the scenes in Plautus, marked as supposititious, in the Abhaudl. 
 d. Berlin, Akad. of the year 1816, s. 277, ff. 
 
 2 See Krt'uzer, Vorfragen ueb. Homeros I. 83. A Phoeniciau colony in Eleusis is 
 diinonstrated by Hamackir, Miscell. Phoenic, p. 212, sq. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 99 
 
 arbitrary etymologising. To me the rules and observations on such 
 etymological investigations by Schelling^ appear golden and not 
 sufficiently prized. 
 
 3. Inscriptions and coins, as well from Phoenicia itself as from 
 its colonies, Cyprus, the States of Asia Minor, &c. The former 
 do not belong to an age much earlier than the time of Christ, the 
 latter are in part older. They have more interest on the whole in 
 a palaeographic than in a linguistic point of view, since we must 
 draw on the linguistic treasures of the Bible in order to decipher 
 them rather than the converse. 
 
 § 22. NEW ARAMAIC DIALECT. THE SYRIAC AS A>T ECCLE- 
 SIASTICAL LANGUAGE. 
 
 With the diffusion of Christianity in the north-easti rn regions 
 of Palestine there arose a dialect as a written language which has 
 throughout a peculiar character, and is commonly called the Syriac.3 
 It developed itself first in the north of Mesopotamic Syria ; the 
 Syrian Church at Edessa deduces its origin from the Apostle 
 Thaddeus (Winer, Reallex. I. 746, fF.), and here there certainly was 
 existing a church, if not in the beginning at least in the middle 
 of the second century (Gieseler, K. G. I. 128 [I. 121, Davidson's 
 Transl.], comp. also MichaeHs Orient. Bibl. X. 60, fF.), and in 
 this the Syriac translation of the New Testament came into use to- 
 wards the end of that century. Hence this is the most ancient 
 document of this literature. Though not slavishly tied to the ori- 
 ginal text, but for the most part felicitously rendering the idiotisma 
 of the Greek into the Aramaic, the whole character of its language 
 has derived thence, nevertheless, a peculiar hue, as is proved by 
 the multitude of Greek words adopted (among which are even par- 
 tides such as ,_iD ^ev, j? 8e, f-*^ <yap, &c., Hug, Einl. ins N. 
 
 1 Ueb. die Gottlieiten von SamotLrace, s. 51, ff. 
 
 2 See tbe older literature in Ilartmauu's Tychsen II. 2, s. 505, ff. More recent works 
 are those of Kopp, Haraacker. Lindberg, &c. (comp. tbe Hall. Allg. L. Z , 1825, No. 64), 
 and Wihl de gravissimis aliquot Phoenicum inscriptionibus comment. Munschen, 
 1831. (Comp. Ewald, Gott. Gel. Anz. 1833, s. 1295, ff.) 
 
 3 Hence I cannot find any just meaning in the opinion of some, as Hoffmann (Gescb. 
 d. Syr. Litt. in Bertholdt's Krit. Journal XV. 226) who speak of a lost Syrian litera- 
 ture. 
 
 G 2 
 
100 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 T. I. 328, S. [Fosdick's Trans, p. 201]). To this was added 
 the translation of the Old Testament (see on this under ch. iv), 
 and thus a proper Church language was formed. — Yet, on the other 
 hand, this translation was very far from conferring elegance on the 
 language, and giving it substantiality, and this lies in the general 
 conception of a translation. Every one sees plainly that in it the 
 language was first constructed,! and hence, as the latter advanced 
 in cultivation, it was impossible for it to continue to satisfy the 
 people. Already in the fourth century many of the expressions 
 were found byEphraem and his contemporaries obscure, and needing 
 explanation or conjecture, a circumstance which at the same time 
 proves the great age of this version.^ Still more perplexed thereby 
 were the later Syriac grammarians who sought to investigate and 
 fix the usage of the language, as Bar-Hebraeus, who not only calls 
 in question the elegance of it,^ and on this ground gives the pre- 
 ference to the LXX. (Assemanni Bibl. Orient. II. 279, sq.), but 
 even complains of its grammatical incorrectness.* — The literature 
 which had come into existence under these church influences began 
 at an early period to be cultivated, at first chiefly by Bardesanes 
 (about the year 170) in Edessa, of whom Eusebius says (H. E. 
 IV. 30), lKav(OTaT6<i Ti<? uvrjp, iv re rfj "Xvpwv (f^covfj hioKeKriKU)' 
 raTO<i. Erom the philosophical tendency of this writer, a multi- 
 tude of new conceptions must have been introduced into the lan- 
 guage, which he further cultivated in another direction, as the 
 
 1 A similar case is supplied by the linguistic history of the Goran, see § 24; only here 
 the Muhanimedan superstition did not allow such fi-ee judgments as those* of the Syr. 
 grammarians. 
 
 2 Comp. the numerous instances in N. Wiseman, Horae Syriacae, I. 122, sq. ; Von 
 Lengerke de Ephraemi arte hermeneutica, p. 112, sq., especially p. 235, sq. 
 
 3 He calls it (Vt > ^ ■ ». i.e. trivial, ordinary, in the vulgar style ; comp. the thorough 
 investigation of the term in Dbpke Anott., ad Michaelis Chrestom. Syr. p. 107, sq. 
 
 4 "i J_Q^Q^,imperitia (comi^. the &d^.lyQ^, idiota, Assem.Bib. Or. I. 37) here in the 
 sense of grammatical unskilfulness. This interesting passage is communicated by 
 Wiseman, from a Codex in the Vatican, lib. cit. p. 106. Barhebraeus notes the form 
 
 nn Vn \n as ungrammatical in place of nn/n^-^ Xn (Ps. iv. 5), for people say 
 
 1/ n «"^\ . and not l «'^\ . Rhode has indeed endeavoured (Gregorii Barhebraei Schol. 
 in Ps. V. etc. Vratislav. 1832, p. 32) to convict Barheb. of an error here, and to defend the 
 form censured by him. But that the form of the Pescliito is approved by grammarians 
 such as Amira proves nothing, as the marvellous manner in which they defend it shows, 
 (Hoft'mann, Gr. Syr. p. 25i.) Dathe's edition of the version of the Psalms has also the 
 
 form l/n n\ which shows plainly the correcting hand of grammarians. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 101 
 
 originator of the Syriac Church Psalmody. His 150 hymns, com- 
 posed after those of David (]ZJj.O), served as a model for the 
 Church poetry of the Syrians (see Acta Ephraemi Syri — composed 
 in the fifth or sixth centuries — in his 0pp. III. p. 51. Asseman. 
 Bib. Orient. I. 48, note 1). — A new bias also must have been given 
 to this literature by the theological schools, such as those founded 
 at Nisibis and Edessa. In the fourth century, Ephraem the Sy- 
 rian distinguished himself as the founder of a school at Edessa, 
 which, from his piety and learning, was in great repute among the 
 Syrians.' He is expressly named as teacher of the Syriac lan- 
 guage and literature (Asseman. Bibl. Orient. III. 2, 924), and 
 Theodoret celebrates him as 'E(j)paLfi 6 6av/jbdaco<i, o-v'y'ypa(f)€v<i Be 
 ovTO<i apiaTO<i irapa ^vpoc<i iyevero {]). 114.) He cultivated lite- 
 rature in many branches. He was the first among the Syrians to 
 compose commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, of which that on 
 the Old Testament alone has been printed. This, however, has 
 come to us in the form of Scholia, for the most part mangled and 
 with many foreign additions, so that properly it forms only a Ca- 
 tena.^ Besides, he wrote a number of ascetic, polemic, and dog- 
 matic works, and homilies, and distinguished himself by his 
 hymns, a species of composition of which the Syrians of his day 
 were very fond (Assem. I. 47.) 
 
 At that time, through the influence of several causes, began an 
 exceedingly propitious epoch for Syrian literature. A great number 
 of interpreters and dogmatic writers flourished, and the different 
 ecclesiastical parties augmented the interest in theology (see the 
 enumeration in Hoffmann, Gesch. der. Syr. Liter. &c., s. 2G3), 
 though from this cause also arose tendencies that were one-sided, 
 and by which further development was restrained, as for instance 
 the adherence of the Nestorians to the exegesis of Theodore of Mop- 
 suesta, in consequence of which commentaries written on another 
 principle were suppressed and forbidden (Assem. III. i. 82 and 84.) 
 The numbers of Persians who frequented the schools of Syria devoted 
 themselves with zeal to the study of the Syriac language, and valued 
 
 1 See the details in Lengerke, lib. cit. p. 85, sq. 
 
 •2 See for his Life Assemaimi Bibl. Orient. I. 24 ; III. 1, p. 61. 0pp. Ephr. Syr. III. 
 p. xxiii. Gaab in Pauliis Memorabilien II. 236. Credner De Prophet. Miu. Vers. Syr. 
 ind. p. 9. Lengerke Comment. Crit. de Ephraemo Syro, p, I, sq. 
 
 3 See Assemani I. 63 ; Wiseman, Hnr. p. 137. Credner, loc cit. p. 28. 
 
102 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 very highly the knowledge of it (Assera. I. 351 ; II. 402 ; III. 2, 
 924 ; Epiphan. adv. Haer. 66.) In the beginning of the 5ih century, 
 a number of Greek works, especially those of the philosophers, were 
 translated into Syriac (Assem. III. 1, p. 85, sq., Barhebr. Chron. 
 Syr. p. 62.) The schools of the Nestorians also rendered their age 
 famous by their knowledge of natural history and medicine (see 
 Sprengel in the Allgem. Eucycl. of Ersch and Gruber. 5. 70.) 
 Of their grammatical cultivation of the Syrian language, we have 
 a witness in the diacritical points which were introduced by them, 
 if not in the time of Ephraem, certainly very shortly after; these 
 by their relation to the strict grammatical discrimination of words 
 show how much the attention of learned Syrians was directed to 
 such studies (Hupfeld, Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1830, 786, ff.) 
 
 As the invasion of the Muhammedan Arabs began, from the 7th 
 century, to impede such studies, and the Syriac began to be sup- 
 pressed, or at least corrupted by the Arabic, grammarians endea- 
 voured to restore the ancient purer speech, and to introduce a 
 methodical mode of learning it (Assem. II. 307, sq.) Among 
 these the first place is due to Jacob of Edessa. Eminently skilled 
 in Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac (Abulpharag. Hist. Dyn. p. 51) j 
 he devoted himself to improving the translations of the Old Testa- 
 ment (Assem. II. 136, sq.) ; and established a sort of Canon of 
 the older standard writers, who alone were worthy of being imitated, 
 namely, Ephraem, Jacob of Sarug, Isaac the Great, Xenajas of 
 Mabug^ (Assem. I. 475 and 478.) At that time the intrusion of 
 so many foreign words or expressions not in harmony with the 
 Syriac idiom appears to have been the evil chiefly deplored, so 
 that frequently a word of a totally different meaning was substituted 
 for that in the received version ; for instance ,^ i V)\sN for ^-JtlDJ. 
 Avoiding this rigid purism Jacob endeavoured to strike out a mid- 
 dle path by an appeal to the older authorities. Since that time 
 the dialect of Edessa has been esteemed the purest in point of pro- 
 nunciation and diction, as in general the dialect of Mesopotamia 
 and Syria Proper, the same as spoken in Assyria (Nabatsea Irak) 
 though there impurely and as a mixed dialect (Assem. I. 476.) 
 The difference between the Nestorian or Eastern, and the Jacobite 
 
 1 Who already before this had been esteemed as a distinguished Stylist, Assem. II. 
 20. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. lOo 
 
 or Western Syrians was anything but fundamental, and sliows how 
 the latter brought in a tendency foreign from the original character 
 
 7 
 
 of the language (they used — in many words in place of — ), pro- 
 bably in order to render faithfully the Chaldaio words of the New 
 Testament (such as 'A^/Sa), which trifling and pedantic tendency 
 shows itself also elsewhere as in the Karkaphensian recension 
 (Wiseman lib. cit. p. 217.)^ Following the Jewish Masorites, the 
 Nestorians and Monophysites divided, each in a peculiar manner, ^ 
 the Scriptures into equal sections, and arranged the books in the 
 whole. The variations of the different versions were determined 
 not without painfully micrological efforts, and the punctuation more 
 exactly fixed. With these grammarians originated the use of the 
 Greek vowels in place of the ancient diacritical marks (even Jacob 
 of Edessa makes use of them), and there appeared works in which 
 the subject of punctuation is expressly handled theoretically.^ 
 
 But all these were only symptoms that the language had ceased 
 to advance in living development, and foreboded its speedy de- 
 cease. In consequence of the prevalence of the Arabic, people came 
 to write in that language as well as in the vernacular language of 
 the country. Already in the lUth and 11th centuries the Syriac 
 had almost disappeared as the language of intercourse in the 
 cities; in the 12th and 13th it had almost entirely vanished every- 
 where (see Eichhorn's Gesch. d. Liter. Th. V. s. 433.) Only a 
 few individuals distinguished themselves as Exegetes and Dogma- 
 tists, chiefly among the Jacobites, such as Barsalibi, bishop of 
 Amida (died 1171), comp. Assemanni II. 158, 160, sq., and 
 Barhebraus or Abulpharadsh (died 1268) ; but they occupied 
 themselves chiefly with the collecting and arranging of the ma- 
 terials supplied by the former times. Of the numerous writings of 
 Barhebraeus (Assem. II. 267, sq.), the most remarkable is the 
 Chronicon, consisting of three parts ; it is especially valuable for 
 the church history of tlie East, and indicates the author's extensive 
 acquaintance with Greek and Syriac authors. It has been edited 
 by Bruns and Kirsch, 2 vols. 4to, Lips., 1789, but stands much 
 
 1 A proper Dialectic variety (HofFmanu, Or. Syr. p. 26) tlicre is no grouud for sup- 
 posing here. 
 
 2 See on the former Adler, Kurze Uebers. c. Bibl. crit. Reise nach Rom. s. 10.3, if., and 
 on the latter Wiseman 1. cit. p. 213, sq. 
 
 3 Comp. Wiseman, lib. cit. p. 182, sq. (cf. p. .SI, sq.) ; Hupfeldl. c. s. 802, ff. 
 
104 
 
 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 in need of emendation ; comp. Bernstein, Greg. Barhebraei e codd. 
 manuscr. passim emendati specimen I. Lips. 1822. Of this 
 Chronicle, Barhebraeus himself composed a compendium in Arabic 
 which was edited by Pococke, Oxon., 1663. Besides this there is 
 the exegetical work of Barhebraeus |1| 5 5. of, Horreum mysterio- 
 rum, composed on the model of the Comment of Barsalibi, 
 taking notice especially of the various readings and renderings, 
 and only explaining the meaning in the more diificult passages 
 (see on it the above-cited work of Ehode.) A very valuable cata- 
 logue of Syriac writings was compiled just before the language 
 became dead by Ebedjesu, metropolitan of Soba (died 1318, comp. 
 Assem. III. i. p. 1, sq.), who also acquired great fame for learning, 
 and excellence of writing in prose and verse (ibid. III. i. p. 325.) 
 It was grammar and lexicography, however, which the national 
 grammarians chiefly cultivated. The existing grammatical works 
 were collected in the beginning of the 13th century by Barzugbi, 
 who adopted as his basis the division and method of the Greek 
 grammarians (Assem. III. i. p. 307 ; Hoffmann, Gr. Syr. p. 29.) 
 Lexicography began with the explanation of the no longer under- 
 stood words in the Peschito, and out of such preparatory works 
 arose the two famous original lexica by Bar Ali and Bar Bahlul, 
 which still remain in manuscript ; comp. Gesenius de Bar Ali et 
 Bar Bahlul, Lips. 1834. 
 
 Nevertheless the Syriac continued among almost all the Christian 
 parties in the East as a Church language, especially in the litur- 
 gies ; without, however, being diffused as a living tongue among 
 the people, unless specially acquired for that purpose. The Maron- 
 ites chiefly devoted themselves to the study of it, and made use of 
 it as the language of literature and writing (Burckhardt, Reise in 
 Syrien, Palast. u. s. w. I. 66.) The Maronites spread also in 
 Europe the knowledge of the Syriac, after in the 16th century a 
 Maronite college had been erected at Rome, in which first of all 
 Amira and Abraham Ecchellensis distinguished themselves. In 
 the beginning of the 18th century, however, there proceeded from 
 this the learned librarians of the Vatican, Joseph Simon and Steph. 
 Evodius Assemanni, through whom the library of the Vatican was 
 enriched with numerous Syriac manuscripts, and to whom the world 
 IS indebted for the editing of important Syriac works, those of 
 Ephraem Syrus (in union with the Jesuit father Benedict) the 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 105 
 
 Acta Martyrum Oriental. (P. I. et. II. Eom. 1748), and above all 
 the valuable Bibliotheca Orientalis, which contains many precious 
 extracts from Syriac writers, and moreover catalogues the many 
 manuscript treasures of the Vatican in this department. Not much 
 has been added to this since the time of the Assemanis ; Adler 
 has done a little, and the recently commenced undertaking of Prof. 
 Wiseman (Horae Syriacae, Tom. I. Eom. 1828), awakens fresh 
 hopes of the further enriching of Syrian literature from so copious 
 a source.^ 
 
 The most valuable helps for the learning of the Syriac are for 
 Grammars (see the full enumeration in Hoffmann, p. 4 1, sq.) those 
 of Amira (Rom. 1596, 4to.), Buxt(yf (Chald. et Syr. Basil. 1650, 
 8vo ed 2), de Dieu (Francof. ad M. 1683, 4), Opitius (Lips. 
 1678), Schaaf (Lugd. Bat. 1686), Ch. B. MichaeUs (Syriasmus 
 Hal. 1741, Lumina Syriaca, in Pott, syll. comment, theol. i. p. 
 170, sq.), J. D. Michaelis (Hal. 1784), Jahn (Wien 1793), Uhle- 
 mann, Hoffmann, &c. [to which may be added the Elements of 
 Syriac Grammar by the Rev. George Phillips, B.D., Lond. 1845, 
 2nd ed.] ; for Dictionaries that to the New Testament by Schaaf 
 (Lugd. Bat. 1708), the general one of Castell, edited by J. D. 
 Michaelis (Gott. 1788) ; for Chrestomathies those of J. D. Mi- 
 chaelis, Adler, Hasse, Kirsch, Bernstein, Knoes. 
 
 Observation. A peculiar mixed dialect (Jargon), proceeding 
 from the New Aramaic, is the Zabaean, the grammar of which has 
 as yet been but little explored. Bearing generally the character 
 of a thoroughly corrupt language, it contains nevertheless here and 
 there original ingredients, or what lead to such. Comp. on it in 
 general Norberg's Libr. Adami, with the Lexidion and Onomasti- 
 con thereto appertaining ; Lorsbach, in the Museum ftir Bibl. und 
 Orient. Liter. Bd. I. st. 1 ; Hartmann, in the O. G. Tychsen, Bd. 
 II. Abt. 1. — On the dialects produced by the mixing of the He- 
 brew and Aramaic idioms, the Samaritan and Chaldaic, see far- 
 ther on. 
 
 1 [Alas ! for these hopes. Dr Wiseman has long since forsaken the path of literary 
 labour for that of ecclesiastical ambition; and his Horae Syriacae remain as they were 
 in 1828.— Te.] 
 
106 HiSTOBY OF THE 
 
 § 23. THE DIALECT OF THE SOUTH. — THE ARABIC LANGUAGE.l 
 
 The most cultivated, and the richest of all the Semitic tongues, 
 and the one therefore standing most markedly in contrast with the 
 Aramaic is the Arabic. Euphonious, rich in vowels, with the 
 most copious variety of forms, and the most elegant and complete 
 structure, it exhibits a literature which alone of its class comes 
 boldly into competition with the plenitude of occidental learning ; 
 which flourished for a thousand years, striking deeper its roots, and 
 becoming more cultivated as it continued to grow. 
 
 Even in the earliest times^it is possible that this dialect was 
 separated from those with which it is allied, though the traces of 
 this are few. The most marked is the form TTi^^^ Gen. x. 20, 
 the designation of a district of Arabia Fehx, having the article pre- 
 fixed, which has also been preserved elsewhere in some Hebrew docu- 
 ments, as in Prov. xxx. 31 ; Jos. xv. 30 ; comp. 1 Chron. iv. 29.'^ 
 — We know also that already in the time of Solomon the wisdom 
 of the Arabs was highly prized, and that enigmas, and so at least the 
 beginning of poesy, were to be found in Yemen, or rather in Sa- 
 baea (1 Kings iv. 30 ; x. I, ff.). 
 
 But there was not in ancient times a literature properly so called 
 among " the sons of the East." Such will not be looked for 
 among the wild, nomadic hordes and tribes of Desert and Stony 
 Arabia. But even in Yemen the inhabitants, however romantic 
 their country, however extensive their commerce, however flourish- 
 ing their condition, never attained the reputation of literary culture. 
 It seemed as if their country, so remarkably situated, and divided 
 by mountain and stream (Ritter, Erdkunde II. s. 191, ff.), inter- 
 posed an insuperable barrier in the way of foreign culture and know- 
 ledge ; these could make no way among that free patriarchal people 
 
 1 We treat tliis subject here naturally only in its relation to tbe Hebrew, in so far as 
 it is of use for tbe development of tbe Hebrew language and literature. 
 
 The reader may compare herewith especially the following writings: 01. Celsii, his. 
 toria linguae et eruditionis Arabum. Upsal. 1694. Ch. B. Michaelis, historia linguae 
 Arabicae. Hal. 1706. Walton prolegg. p. 633, sqq. Dathe. Gesenius, in der Hail. En- 
 cyclop. I., Th. V. u. d. Art. Arab. Sprache und Literatur. Ewald Gr. Crit. 1. Arab. 
 I. p. 1, sq. — Schnurrer Bibliotheca Arabica. Halle 1811, 8. 
 
 ii See Hartmaun, Thes. Ling. Heb. e Mishna aug. Part I. p. 22. [The proposed ex- 
 planation of tbe words, having Al prefixed in the passages cited, is very doubtful ; see 
 Maurer's notes in bis Comment. Crit. in Vet. Test. — Tb.T 
 
 ■i 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 107 
 
 wliicli the might of Persia had not subdued (Herod, iii. 38), to 
 wliich the host of Alexander could not penetrate, from before which 
 the legions even of Augustus turned back (Straho 1. XVI., p. 782, 
 sq., and J 129.) Great revolutions, by which the whole essence and 
 character of the ancient state were destroyed, furnished the instru- 
 mentality by which, through a mingliug of foreign elements with 
 the simple notions of the people, a more refined state of culture was 
 introduced. Civil disturbances which the insolence of the Him- 
 yaritic conqueror of Yemen provoked, occasioned an exile of older 
 races in the second century after Christ.^ To this were added 
 violent natural catastrophes, the breaking down of the dykes which, 
 erected in remote antiquity, had made the land of the Sabeans, 
 Mareb, into a Paradise, and the destruction of which turned it into 
 a frighful waste.^ The families of the tribes of the Sabeans, Jok- 
 tanides or Himyarites, spread themselves over North Arabia, where 
 they obtained supremacy over the Ismaelitish tribes dweUing there. 
 The exiles founded the famous kingdoms of Gassan and Hira on 
 the Euphrates. The Chosaites/ however, maintained themselves 
 in the deserted territory as a new race that had penetrated to it, 
 and extended their conquests as far as Mecca, always a place of 
 importance for that centtial land, and long before the time of 
 Muhammed, a holy place for the Arabs who had there their National 
 sanctuary. The princes of Yemen became agaiti (from 300 a. d.) 
 powerful ; long and bloody wars arose with the more northern tribes, 
 which, at last in the earlier half of the 6th century, secured their 
 independence, and chose rulers for themselves.* 
 
 Thus many causes conspired to awaken a living sense for poetry. 
 The heroes who in their incessant wars were distinguishing them- 
 selves by their exploits, required poets to perpetuate their glory to 
 posterity. Above all, however, a new religious life and tendency 
 arose after the ancient holy treasure, the Kaaba {i.e. Die from its 
 
 1 See De Sacy, in the Memoires de literature, T. 48 p, 517, sq, 
 
 2 See on these histories, which are much ornamented from Sagas, Reiske, De Arabum 
 epocha vetustissima, Sail ol Arem, id est ruptura catarrhaetae Marebensis dicta. Lips. 
 1748. De Sacy lib. eit. p. 488, sq. RiMer, s. 139, flf. 
 
 3 So called from . . abscidit separavit, because whilst the other strangers left 
 
 the region again, they separated from them and remained behind. 
 
 * See on this Tychsen, De poeseos Arabum origine et indole antiquissinia, in the 
 Commentt. Soc. Reg. Obit, recentt. T. 111. p. 250, sq. 
 
J 08 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 appearance, also called ( XfXx}^ CIjaj Ancient House), came into 
 
 the possession of a foreign and thence most highly reverenced tribe.^ 
 The former guardians of the Kaaba, the Giorharaids, had defiled 
 the Holy Place,^ and with lamentation the last Giorhamid, Amru 
 Ben Elharith, left the house "in which the dove that dwelt in its 
 shadows, and the sparrow were safe," and threatened the proud 
 conqueror with a fate similar to his own.^ The new rulers re- 
 adorned the Kaaba " with fine linen and variegated tapestry ;"* a 
 new Aramaic worship was introduced, instead of the ancient image- 
 less worship, statues of idols were placed on the Kaaba ;'' Hobal 
 h^'3.'n> '^6 Great Baal absolutely so called (Miinter, Relig. d. 
 Babylon, s. 18, fl".) was reverenced,^ also Asaf and Neilah ;'' from 
 all quarters the pilgrims of the tribe flowed to the National 
 Holy Place, where the newly organised worship was set up. — In 
 this way there arose a reciprocal contact of the different tribes ; 
 languages and manners approximated, and were reciprocally inter- 
 changed ; the northerns and southerns, formerly so different, found 
 at length a common middle-point, and rivalry kindled mutual emu- 
 lation. (Abulf. 1. cit.) 
 
 So long as the Himyarites remained in possession of Southern 
 
 1 Sacrosancla quadam veneratione semper fuisse affectos, qui templi Meccani sacris 
 praesiderent, ejusque aedis custodiam ac curationem regni instar pontificalis liabitam, 
 cui fasces summittere ipsi reges non dedignarentur. Scbultens, momim. vet. Ar. p. 4. 
 
 2 Nuweiri ap. Scliultens 1. cit. p. 5. 
 
 3 See the beautiful poem ascribed to Amru, but greatly interpolated through oral 
 tradition, iu Schultens 1. cit. p. 2 and p. 9, and De Sacy's remarks thereon, 1. cit. torn. 
 50, p. 361, sq. 
 
 4 Comp. Schultens, p. 13, 14. De Sacy, p. 363, sq. 
 
 5 Amru Lochaiji films primus ido la super Caaham posiiit eisque cultum exhibuit. 
 Abulfeda, hist. Auteislam. p. 137, ed. Fleischer. 
 
 6 Probably this Idol had a special oracle, whose answers were given by means of 
 arrows. Comp. Pococke, p. 96 sq., and 329. This also was borrowed from Aramaea, see 
 Ezek. xxi. 21. [Consult the notes of Lowth, Newcome,and Fairbairn,on this passage.] 
 Had the Tapestries above mentioned anything to do with this ? 1 remember what 
 Miinter says, p. 63, fF., on the Babylonian tapestries ; but see Eeiske ad Abulf. I., p. 
 9. sq. 
 
 7 Abulfeda, 1. cit. They were children of Amru, and we have here a trace of Hero- 
 worship, which also was a Babylonian usage, Miinter s. 29, ff. Comp. Pococke, p. 98_ — 
 The Dove-worship points also to Aramaea, see Pococke 1. c. and Miinter s 33. Asaf 
 and Neilah stood on the holy mountains near Mecca, Safa and Merva, Abulf. p. 180; 
 oa whose ancient sanctity, see Koran Sur. 11.163. Schult. Mouum. p. 6. Comp. also 
 Gesenius Vorrede zu Grambergs Gesch. Id. d. Relig. d. A. T. s. XV. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 109 
 
 Arabia, they were markedly separated from the inhabitants of Middle 
 Asia by a peculiar language. The overthrow of the Himyaritic 
 power, and the centralization at Mecca, gave to the dialect of Mecca 
 a general preponderance ; a general language that coitld be com- 
 monly understood came, through the multifarious dialectical differ- 
 ences of the different tribes, to be a pressing desideratum (Nuweiri 
 in Eeiske's notes on Abulf. Ann. III. p. 308, sq.) This dialect of 
 Mecca, which had already before the time of Muhammed come 
 into general use as a written language, was by him still more widely 
 introduced, and received the name Arabic lanrjuage by way 
 of eminence (Kor. Sur. 16. 103), also Koreitish language, from 
 the Prophet's having sprung from that stock, and became the ob- 
 ject of general admiration and praise.^ 
 
 Of the old Himyaritic dialect very few traces are now to be found 
 
 (among which may be reckoned that they pronounced ^ ,i". wa- 
 
 saha, not like the other Arabs, icataba) ; it appears, however, that, 
 similar to its neighbour the Ethiopic,^ it was simpler, and hence 
 also allied to the Hebrew, although the difference can hardly be 
 viewed as a very essential one, as the comparison of the Ethiopic 
 especially shows (Ewald, Gr. Ar. I. p. 4). — The old Arabic, 
 spoken in the northern districts and the region bordering on the 
 Euphrates, was certainly more allied to the Aramaic, which was the 
 natural consequence of the geographical position of those using it, 
 and their frequent intercourse with the Arameans.* The number of 
 Jews also who since the second century have been located in Arabia 
 must have contributed thereto by their Chaldaic language. To the 
 same conclusion we are led by the great affinity, not merely of the vul- 
 gar-Arabic with the Aramaic (Gesenius, 1. c. s. 47), but also the Ko- 
 
 1 Thus already in the Kor. Sur. xxvi. 195, 198 ; xli. 44. 
 
 2 The Ethiopiaus and the inhabitants of Yemen were certainly of the same stock ; 
 hence the name Cush is applied to both in the Old Testament. Winer Real-W3., 
 s. 274. 
 
 3 [Since the above was written, great additions have been made to our acquaintance 
 with the language of the Himyars by the discovery of the inscriptions on the Hhissu 
 Ghurab by Lieut. Welsted, and the learned labours on them and other similar inscrip- 
 tions by Gesenius, Eoediger, Ewald, Lassen, Fresnel, Wilson, Forster, and others. The 
 reader will find accessible and valuable information on this curious subject in Dr John 
 Wilson's Lands of the Bible, vol. ii. p. 746, ff., and in the American Bibliotheca Sacra for 
 1845, p.237,fF.— Tr.] 
 
 4 Peiper carries this too far when he infers that the Himyaritic dialect was also Ara- 
 maic. De Moall. Lebidi, p. 72, sq. 
 
I ] HISTORY OF THE 
 
 reitic Arabic. In connectiou with this Tychsen has (1. cit. p. 2R4, 
 sq.) acutely called attention to the fact that the signs of the oblique 
 cases (in general of later origin, Ewald, § 330 — 332) may well be 
 combined with Aramaic forms, the j.^ of the status emphaticus with 
 
 the \ of the accusative (comp. Ewald, § 337), the ^ j — of the 
 
 Dual with 'j*i — , as also in the plural ^ . — with "|^ — ; since by 
 
 these signs through cases the language took refuge in a dialect. 
 See also on this Ewald, p. 155. 
 
 Although from the second to the fifth century a literary activity 
 was diffused among the Arabs, we nevertheless possess no written 
 documents belonging to this period any more than to the preced- 
 ing. Nothing is to be expected here but traditional wisdom, no- 
 thing but the scattered beginnings of a literature properly so called 
 in this way forming itself The marvellous power of memory of 
 the Orientals, especially such tribes as live in a simpler state of na- 
 ture, and the national pride which they cherish in the faithful reten- 
 tion of their family traditions, sufficiently account for this. Even 
 up to the time of Muhammed, it was the custom of the Poets to 
 recite even their longest poems on the spur of the moment,^ and 
 the older were transferred to posterity only by tradition, a custom 
 which still continued to the latest age of the Islam. ^ 
 
 What remains belonging to this traditional age, in a more or less 
 disfigured form, may be reduced to the following. First, genealo- 
 gies, the knowledge of which even the Koran commends (Sur. 
 xlix. 13), and for the preservation of which in each tribe there 
 
 were persons especially commissioned (, »Lwyj^^ tXs- Abulf. 180^ 
 
 1. 7) ; these are indeed defective in particular instances, and from dif- 
 ferent motives corrupted, but nevertheless as a whole they form valu- 
 able documents of the most ancient legendary history.* Next to the 
 genealogies stand individual historical facts, narrated under the 
 date of specially memorable Days ; in these, however, free scope 
 
 1 There are no sufficient grounds for believing in tbe existence of a literature now 
 lost through violent means, as Giirres suggests, Asiat. Mythengesch, II., s. 328. 
 
 2 Tarafae Moall. ed. Eeiske, p. XL. Antara ed. Willmet Prolegg, p. 18. 
 
 3 Nuweiri in Rosenmiiller Zoheiri Moall. p. 11,— Hartmann Forsch. ueb. d. Pentat. 
 s. 292, flf. 
 
 * Eeiske's opinion is: " Arabes quoad tempora Christc anteriora, in genealogiis suis 
 tiliqiiid. in historia sua nihil scire (de Ar. Ep. Vetust. p. 29.) See Eichhorn, Monum. 
 Ant. Hist. Ar. p. 18-58. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES Of THE OLD TESTAMENT. Ill 
 
 lias been allowed to arbitary invention, and the legendary guise is 
 nnmistakeable/ Afterwards tradition found its expression in Pro- 
 verbs, sentences full of naive and pregnant brevity ; these formed 
 the vehicle of instruction in the early time (Creuzer Symbolik, I, 
 19, ff.), and contain not only general truths, but also many his- 
 torical facts." Moreover, after the restoration of the worship in the 
 Caaba, there arose a holy Temple-poetrij. The priestly-minded 
 people, along with a multitude of holy ordinances (as appears from 
 the enumeration of later usages, sanctioned even by the Islam 
 Abulleda p. 180, Herod, iii. 8), had certainly like the Hel- 
 lenes at one time, their lepaoSoi, and sacred poetry.^ We place 
 among these especially the following: 1. Fragments of ancient 
 poetry, such as those collected by Schultens in his Monumenta. 
 It may be, according to De Sacy's thoroughly discriminating inves- 
 tigation, that many of these poems are wrongly placed by Schultens 
 in point of chronology, and have had assigned to them by "him a much 
 too high antiquity; nevertheless in some of them there is undeniably 
 a spirit which savours only of antiquity. Thus the poems No. 1, 
 2, 4, containing clear references to the old Aramaic worship must 
 be necessarily of older origin than the later songs of heroes, which 
 have an entirely secular tendency. Very diverse indeed is the form 
 in which these songs have come down to us, but this circum- 
 stance of itself indicates their old traditional origin, as even De Sacy 
 himself acknowledges. Exactly similar is the case of the Or- 
 phic hymns, the form of which may be as recent as you please, 
 but which nevertheless conduct us back to the primitive tem- 
 ple-poetry and the remains of Orpliic lore. Hence the re- 
 mark of Tychsen, that the form and nature of these poems attest 
 a more recent origin (lib. cit. p. 238) is not decisive; and as little 
 is Reiske's sentence (ad Abulf. I. p. d), that they are more pro- 
 saic than poetic. Schnurrer's reply to this is excellent (Bibl. 
 Arab. p. 295) : " Quid tamen si quis dixerit formas vocum sin- 
 
 1 See Hartmann, Lib. cit. s. 287, fF. 
 
 2 In many of these there are illustrative examples. See Schultens Monum. p. 38. 
 Comp. Eichhorn 1. cit. p. 14, sq. 
 
 3 See Kreuser, der Hellenen Priesterstaat, s. 189, ff. 
 
 * P. 362, " Disons qu'uu ancien fracjment de poesie conserve par une tradition orale 
 aura ete altere, tautot par des omissions, tautot par des intejpolations qui ont produit 
 toutes ces variantes. 
 
 5 Creuzer Symb. III. s. 144, ff. 
 
]12 
 
 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 gulas vel obsoletas vel peregrinas sensim permutatas fuisse usita- 
 tioribus ? Quod quidem facile accidere potuisse intelliget, qui 
 cogitet, meraoriter atque ore tantum traditos fuisse illos versus, non 
 litteris consiguatos. Quod autum arte carent et colore poetico, id 
 tantum abest, ut contra eorum antiquitatem quidquam valeat, ut 
 potius eandem confirmare videri possit." 2. Another branch of 
 the sacred poetry of the old Arabs was the Prophecies which are 
 to be found among them. Great reverence was paid by them to 
 Oneiromancy (Lj^rM ^a-^xj Abulf. p. 180), and other methods 
 of soothsaying ; great was their faith in omens and the power of 
 curses and imprecations (Antara Moall. ver. 21 and the schol. 
 thereon, also Willmet's note.) The Prophets (. . y^\'=^) thus 
 formed a peculiar class, and even princes appear to have belonged 
 to it. These prophecies are comprised in short peculiar strophes 
 composed without any art ; those found of latter date imitate at 
 least in this respect the earlier customary usage. (Tychsen, p. 
 242, sq.) 
 
 The Arabic language and literature acquired a new character 
 from the general introduction, among those using it, of the art of 
 writing, which came first into use in the 6th century, not long before 
 Muhammed.2 Two periods may be here distinguished. The 
 former and more ancient was that to which a heroic character espe- 
 cially belonged ; during it were produced the oldest poems of the 
 Hamasah, a collection of ancient songs made in the first half of 
 the 9th century by Abu Temmam. Some of these have quite 
 the brief strophic construction of the old songs (Tychsen, p. 265), 
 and bespeak at once a place among proper poetical productions. 
 They want, however, an inner and higher tendency ; strife and the 
 sword form the loftiest ideal of their authors. A greater degree of 
 cultivation is already apparent in the poems belonging to the se- 
 cond period, that immediately preceding Muhammed. In it the 
 poetic life and effort reached their greatest point of elevation. This 
 is proved by the legend of Tarafa, that he had neglected to feed 
 his flocks for poetizing (Vullers ad Taraf. Moall. p. 17 and 76), 
 and others similar ; it is proved also by the contests and prlze- 
 
 1 The King Sobeir bad the svirnamn _ *m\^s\\' ^^""^^ P- ^^^' ^^> which indeed 
 
 has respect only to his acuteness. 
 
 •2 De Sacy, 1. c. p. 248, sq. Ewald, p. 7, sq. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. J 18 
 
 competitions, which took place every year iu Okad ;i we find 
 even poetesses (Chansa and Leila, Eichhorn, Monum. p. 43 and 
 47) mentioned at this period. The tribes congratulated that 
 one which produced a poet, and estabhshed festivals in his honour 
 (Pococke, p. JGO.) Particular poems of the older time, in which 
 one object only was slightly touched d •• Aaj'^O. were greatly 
 extended {^\^), among which the Kasidas (sJvAAai*) were espe- 
 cially famous ; a word, the meaning of which most probably is, 
 " carmen studio et arte elaboratum."^ In these there is apparent 
 a wholly imt-together character ; the poet, beginning commonly 
 with a delineation of his beloved (Lia**o).. joins together a num- 
 ber of objects, which, however, are very loosely bound to each 
 other. The grand aim in these rhapsodical songs is not the finish- 
 ing off of the whole, but only the completion of each representation, 
 in which the whole art of the poet is showed in the most mani- 
 fold accumulation of synonymes and unusual expressions ; here 
 however the beginnings of art are apparent. The first Kasida poet 
 must have been Mohallel, who also was the first to unite the erotic 
 style with the heroic (Tychsen, p. 262, sq.) We have still extant, 
 however, the far-famed seven Moallakas (i. e. The Suspended, — 
 poems which, having gained the prize, were consequently suspended 
 in the Kaaba),^ the composition of Taraf'a, Amru Ben Ketthum, 
 Hareth, Amrulkeis, Artara, Soheir, and Lebid, valuable monuments 
 of the old heroic spirit of the Arab chiefs, which celebrate their 
 loves, their sword, their camel, and their horse.* That no more 
 of these poems are preserved to us (though some erroneously sup- 
 pose otherwise, see Tychsen, p. 257), is principally due to the rise of 
 that new species of poetry of which the Islam in turn made an end. 
 Under this period also fall the greater part of the poems of the 
 formerly noticed Humasah (a^L».:^5^ valour). The whole of 
 this collection falls into ten sections, which are arranged according 
 
 1 Pococke, Spec. p. 159. Schulieus erroneously (Mod. p. 2;) makes this a primitive 
 custom ; it probably origiiiated at a period shortly before Muhammed. 
 
 2 So TycLseii, p. 273. Otherwise Von Bohlen de Motenabb. p. 91. Comp. also Jones 
 de Poesi As. p. 66, sq , ed. Eichhorn. 
 
 3 This, however, is subject of controversy. See Hengsteuberg ad Anirulk. M. p. 2, 
 sq. They are called also " The Gilded," from the golden ornaments at the beginning and 
 end of the rolls. 
 
 * An exact analysis of these is given by De Sacy, Mem. .50, p. 376, sq. 
 H 
 
1 I i HISTORY OF THE 
 
 to their contents. Tl)us. 1 . Heroic poems, the chief constituent 
 
 of the whole, from which the collection takes its name (^ ,L 
 
 AA^^^acOO ; 2. Elegies ; 3. Elegant Literature (, ,i^^) ; 4. 
 
 Erotic poems; 5. Satires; 6. Songs in praise of hospitality 
 
 ((, 5^x9^0 ; 7. Descriptions (^ •• .^LoJt!) ; 8. Travelling sketches 
 
 (y**SAJ!*. -ja*JO ' 9. Facetious poems; 10. Satires and Eulogies 
 on women. We possess in this also an Anthology, having refer- 
 ence to the different branches of poetical literature, and thus highly 
 instructive, which was in the highest esteem among the Arabs, so 
 that of Abu Temraam, himself a poet, it was said that by this col- 
 lection he had surpassed himself in poetry. Of less value is the 
 supplement to this called the Little Hamasah, compiled fifty 
 years later by Bahri, and divided into ] 76 chapters. A similar 
 collection of poems is the Divan of the Hudeilites, which also 
 proceeded from this stock, but only small fragments of it are 
 known. 
 
 § 24. THE CORAN AND MUHAMMEDAN LITERATURE. 
 
 A new epoch for the Arabic language was formed by the ap- 
 pearance of the book which is regarded as the rule of faith among 
 the adherents of the Islam, According to its own statements, it 
 was revealed to the Prophet in one night^ (Sur. 97), a passage 
 which, however, stands in contradiction to many others which 
 clearly indicate that the utterances of the Coran occurred to Mu- 
 hammed separately, and on different occasions. The same contra- 
 diction occurs in the Arabic Historiographers, who, though they 
 speak of the Coran as a whole^ at the beginning of Muhammed's 
 appearance (Abulf. Annal. I. 38, ed. Adler), yet afterwards enume- 
 rate the different portions in which it was communicated (see Rink 
 
 1 Schultens Praef. ad Erpen. Gram. Arab. p. cxxxi. 
 
 2 r*^"**^ '^~- On the meaning of this the Arabic commentators themselves 
 are divided ; according to some j<^^ is magnitudo, to others decretum. 
 
 3 SuL>.sa^iJ, codex, liber, cf. Reiske ad Abul. I. 870. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 115 
 
 in the Fandgruben d. Or. I. 140,) It received its name C^lj'^^') 
 from the well-known story that Gabriel taught Muhammed to read 
 (Sur. 9C, 1 — 3, comp. De Sacy 1. cit. p. 290.) Already even in 
 the time of Muhammed there were portions of the Goran com- 
 mitted, at least for the most past, to writing (De Sacy, p. 305, sq.), 
 and persons made it their special business to read and preserve 
 
 {Yi}\) these (Abulf. I. 212, 208.) But it was not till the 
 13th year of the Hedschra, two years after Muhammed's death, 
 that Abubeker undertook the collecting of them into one whole 
 (Abulf. I. 212; Elmacin, Hist. Sarac, p. 18; Erpcn.de Sacy, p. 
 312.) Already, in the time of Osman, a variety of different read- 
 ings were observed, in consequence of which he caused a number 
 of copies to be taken from the Codex of Abubeker which had been 
 deposited with Hafsa, Muhammed's wife, caused them to be distri- 
 buted, and rendered obsolete the rest (Abulf 1. c. and p. 204.) As 
 another consequence of these differences, the vocalisation of the 
 Goran was undertaken (De Sacy, p. 320, sq.) The Coran is 
 divided into 114 surahs or chapters, the names of which are taken 
 sometimes from the subjects treated of in them, sometimes from 
 some person or object named (in many cases cursorily), sometimes 
 from letters, the meaning of which, from their being probably ab- 
 breviations, it is very difficult to detect (see Gagnier ad Abulf. vit. 
 Muh. p. 22, sq.) The subscription usually contains the informa- 
 tion that the Surah was revealed either in Mecca or Medina, as well 
 as the statement of the verses, in which, however, as formerly in 
 the Text, there are mauy various lections.''^ Before three Surahs 
 (2, 30, and 31), there stands an obscure word *M, to which even 
 
 the Muhammedans attach different meanings ; it is probably an 
 abbreviation (Freytag, Lex. Ar. I. 51.) 
 
 In the language of the Coran there is much that is peculiar. 
 It is on the whple harsh and rugged, and exhibits many unusual 
 forms. It rarely assumes either in form (see Tychsen 1. cit. p. 
 278) or in substance a poetical strain ; when this does occur, Mu- 
 
 1 Properly reading, \ Ji proprie est de libro, quern coram babes, aliquid recitare 
 fcJJ autem e cnrde vel memoria recitare. Reiske ad Abulf. I., p. 26. 
 
 2 Comp. Eink lib. cit. s. 129, flF, 
 
 H 2 
 
I Id HISTORY OF THE 
 
 liammed lias for the most part been indebted for it to earlier 
 writers (see Michaelis, Vom Arab. Geschmack, s. 39, fi.) ; in ge- 
 neral it is flat and prosaic, a fault which the rhyme at the end of 
 each verse does nothing to relieve. The relation of Muhamme- 
 danism to the existing Heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity, and 
 its consequent syncretic tendency, gave also to the language an 
 entirely new hue. Hence we find here as an immediate I'esult, an 
 entirL4y new circle of religious ideas and expressions,^ which, how- 
 ever, gradually passed into civil life, and here also partly pro- 
 duced new modes of expressionz or antiquated older ones, and 
 gave them a new sense. ^ 
 
 The Goran, assuming to be the Book of Books (Hottiuger, Hist- 
 Orient., p. 300), denounces disbelief in a single verse of it as the 
 greatest of sins (Reland de rehg. Moh., p. 25), and commends the 
 reading of it as the most beneficial exercise (Ibid. p. 103.) Hence, 
 whilst on the one hand it exerted an incalculable influence on 
 the later hterature of the Arabs, by repressing the free spiiitual 
 development of the people ; on the other hand, it gave rise to 
 many controversies, which occasioned, immediately on their ap- 
 pearance, an exact study of the language.* Hence already in the 
 first centuries of the Hedschra, grammatical studies flourished 
 among the Arabs ; the learned schools of Kufa and Basra espe- 
 
 1 As the j-K^s^ ^-Jj^jy»]^3 of unbelief, ^^j (aud its derivatives) of religious 
 reverence, piety, (^AJ-^^ /**^ idolaters, &c. ; foreign idioms, as ^^ «Xa«<3) 
 
 {j^ri) to produce corruption on the earth, i.e. to propagate ungodly doctrines (Mar- 
 
 acci on Sur. ii. 11), Mi) ,__\j>>am ^^ J^» pugnare in via Dei, &c. Comp. the 
 valuable essays of Dettiuger, entitled' Beitrage zur Theologie des Koran, in the Tii- 
 biugerZeitschrift 1831, H. 3. aud 1834, H. 1. 
 
 2 As e. f/r. the new chronological system, with the names of the days, years, and 
 mouths. See Ideler Handb. d. Chronol. II. 494, ff. 
 
 3 Such as the ancient names of kings, as Tobai, in place of the later synonymous 
 term, Caliph (Pococke Spec, p. 65) ; also the transformation of the conception 
 
 ^ItX^X (Fleischer onAbulf., p. 224), and other ancient words referring to old usages 
 
 and customs (Pococke, p. 323, sq.),to which also the old Arabic royal greeting cHajji 
 
 ^XJJi (abnuas malediciionem, Poc. p. 56), and others belong. 
 
 4 See for the Literature of the Coran, Hottinger Bibl. Orient., p. 105, sq. Schuurrer 
 Bibl. Arab. p. 401, sq. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TKSTA MLNT. 1 17 
 
 cially distinguished themselves. Elchalil and Sibawaih in the 2d 
 century were the most celebrated of these grammarians (corap. De 
 Sacy, Authol. Grammaticale Arabe. Paris, 1829) ; and even till 
 the present age this branch of Arabic science has continued to be 
 cultivated (see Gesenius, Hall. Ency. V. 50, fF.) The most im- 
 portant works are those of the lexicographers Dschauhari (died 
 398 of the Hedschra) and Firuzabadi, author of the important 
 Kamus, of whicli a complete edition appeared at Calcutta in 1817, 
 two vols, folio (died 817 of the H.) In these indeed, compre- 
 hensive as they are, it is only an empiric knowledge of the lan- 
 guage, which does not penetrate into the essence and inner or- 
 ganic development of it, that is supplied (Ewald, Abhaudll. z. 
 Oriental, und Bibl. Literat. s. 13, S.) 
 
 In the early times of the Islam there was thus displayed also a cer- 
 tain literary activity, which the Coran, which itself commends poetry 
 and learning, did not impede. The moral proverbs of Ali^ also 
 recommend learning and arts, and are themselves rich in genius and 
 feeling. Yet the Coran gave not only to the whole language a 
 character of fixedness, but also a character of narrowness to the 
 whole literature. Besides the Coran, people occupied themselves 
 chiefly with the collecting of the traditional sayings of Muhammed, 
 known under the name of the Saunah (see Von Hammer, in the 
 Fundgruben, Ih. I. s. U4, ff., 277, fl. ; comp. Pococke, Spec. p. 
 298, sq. Hottinger, Bibl. Or. p. 163, sq.) — But the rise of the 
 Chalifat, the rude warlike feeling, and the bold spirit of conquest 
 which had seized the nation, were inimical to the peaceful growth 
 of learning. As towards the end of the rule of the Ommajades, 
 and under the Abbassides, about the middle of the 8th century, 
 the Chalifat first lost its ancient heroic severity, and the primitive 
 simplicity of the Arab life was relinquished, we may fix a new in- 
 tellectual era from that, which, however, bore still the mark of a 
 degenerate age. " In Persia they could become familiar with wine, 
 music, mimicry, and dancing ; tales come out of Egypt and Per- 
 sia ; architecture and medicine were transported out of Greece into 
 Syria and Egypt." (Leo, Gesch. d. Mittelalters I. 225.) Bag- 
 
 1 Edited by Waehnen (Oxou. 18()6, 4to.) In it, it is true, many tbings of more re- 
 cent origin are to be found, but it has much also of genuinely ancient wisdom. See 
 Stickei, Sentent. Ali (Jen. 1834, -Ito) Prsef. p. II, sq.— Clearly spurious are the poems of 
 Ali, edited by Kuypers (J^udg. Bat. 17l5, 8vo), see Schultens, Bibl. Grit. I. 2, SO. 
 
1 18 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 \ 
 
 dad, the new residence of the Ahbassides, became the centre whence 
 various kinds of knowledge spread abroad, favoured by the Chaliphs, 
 such as Mahadi, Haroun Alraschid, Almamun, Almotassem, &c. 
 Even when the power of the Chalifat was overthrown, and indi- 
 vidual provinces became the object of strife among the governors, 
 science flourished under the new rulers, especially in Persia and 
 Egypt. Especially distinguished in this respect was the kingdom 
 held by the Ommajades in Spain.i 
 
 Poetry at this time revived, not only of the lyric, but also of 
 the heroic species ; in the latter, through Abu Temmam (died 845, 
 comp. Eeiske ad Abulf. ann. II. p. 688), who collected the Ha- 
 masah ; in the former, through Abu Naves (died 810 ; " homo 
 iaceti ingenii," Eeiske, 1. c. p. 657.) Writers of Kasidas also 
 arose, such as Ibn Doreid of Basora, who reminds one of the old 
 poetry, and who was also the author of several grammatical works 
 (died 933 ; Scheid ad Idn Doreid, Idyll, init.), and many besides, 
 whose names, with a few fragments alone, remain to us (Von 
 Bohlen, de Moteuabbio, p. 81, sq.) In different sorts of poeti- 
 cal composition Alotenabbi exercised himself in the 10th century, 
 who, however, bears all the marks of a degenerate age, one swal- 
 lowed up in flattery, covetousuess, luxury, and irreligion, and hence 
 must not be judged by the extravagant praises of his cotemporaries, 
 who, ignorant of the ancient poetry, perceived not his imitation of 
 it (Von Bohlen, p. 37, sq.) The mode of rewarding poems which 
 then prevailed was calculated to exert a most pernicious influence. 
 " Had the verses been more numerous, there had been more dir- 
 hems," said Abu Naves, when 300,000 dirhems were given him 
 for three verses ; Motenabbi indited his eulogies according to the 
 rate of a specified sum (Von Bohlen, p. 27.) Very characteristic 
 of his age is Abulola, who died 1057 ; less of a free-tliinker than 
 Motenabbi, he is full of passages which bear a mystic character — 
 he was himself a member of an ascetic sect — with scofiings at all 
 existing religions except the Muhammedan, — the Persius of his 
 day ; and hence there is a properly outward and inward mystical 
 sense to be discriminated in his writings (Abulf. III. 63, sq. ; 
 Reiske, p. 677, sq.) Tograi, his contemporary, is especially known 
 by his Lam song, each verse of which ends with the letter lam (/). 
 
 1 See Middelilorpf, De iiifclitutiB litcrHriis ill Hispauin. quai' Arulxs auctorts Labue- 
 ruut. Goit. 1810, 410. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 119 
 
 In the 12th century Meidani rendered service by the collecting of 
 gnomes (Maschals) ; the proverbs are for the most part individual, 
 and full of rich references to Arabic modes of thought and feeling, 
 which, however, render them difficult to be understood without the 
 aid of the schoHasts. Sentences of a more general kind are 
 contained in the later collections of Zamachshari and Abu Madin. 
 Proper lyric poetry sunk ever lower and lower into a mere empty 
 formal existence (see e. yr. Abulf. III. p. 474, sq.) Of this sort is 
 the poem of Al-Busiris, called Borda} composed in honour of 
 Muhammed, and very highly esteemed by all Mumammedaus 
 (Herbelot, Bibl. Or. sub. voc. Borda.) At length this kind of 
 poetry fell into mere allegorical and mystical compositions (such as 
 those of Omar Ibn alFaredh,died 1244,Azneddin Almokadessi, died 
 1280, &c.) ; these were for the most part called forth by the earher 
 pantheistic Philosophical sects (see Tholuck, Ssufismus, p. 45, sq.) 
 Poetry degenerated into mere rhyme ; even grammar, astronomy, 
 and similar prosaic subjects were thus treated, and nothing of 
 poetry remained but the form. Oratory was the best adapted to 
 this, because there the discourse assumes a sort of poetic strain, 
 though its object is properly didactic ; a number of puns and 
 enigmas gave a piquancy and attractiveness to the whole. The 
 most famous work of this sort is the Tifty Makamen (consessus, 
 conversations) of Hariri (died 1120.) Also the collections of tales 
 must be reckoned here, among which those of the Thousand and 
 One Nights are the most famous. Of these the original must have 
 been Persic (Fundgr. d. Or. I. 55), and the language approaches 
 to the vulgar Arabic. Of fables the Arabic literature possesses 
 two collections of especial distinction ; the one of Indian origin, 
 translated into the Arabic from the Persic, and containing rules of 
 wisdom for a monarch set forth in fables of animals — the Calila 
 ve Dimna, the fable book of Bidpai, which has been translated into 
 many tongues, and is the source even of many romantic poems of the 
 middle age in the west ; the other Lokmau's Fables, whose author 
 is lauded in the Coran, and the tradition is that he belonged to the 
 age of Solomon ; they resemble in point of matter extremely the 
 fables of ^sop and Phaedrus, but over their origin and preserva- 
 
 1 Borda orieutalibus dicitur pauuus strialus et ex tali geuere i.aiini coiiffCta veslis 
 domestica quotidiani usus. Eeiske 1.1. 1., p. 35, cU. p. 10. 
 
120 HISroRY OF THK 
 
 tion great obscurity hangs. (Comp. Hottinger, Hist. Or. p. 68, 
 sq. Schultens ad Elnawab. p. 112. Celsius I. § 16.) 
 
 At a later period than the poetical, historical literature arose 
 among the Arabs. In point of historical character the Arabic 
 writers of history in general have the greatest affinity with the 
 Chronicle- writers of the middle ages, and in many respects also with 
 the historical books of the Bible. They are wholly annalists, with- 
 out historical Pragmatism [Pragmatismus] or connecting of events, 
 and the chronology affords the only thread by which the transac- 
 tions they narrate are united. This lies in the very name they 
 
 give to history, ^'^ ^j-, Chronicle from • \, to note the time in 
 
 which anything is done ; hence e. gr. also to date a letter. They 
 frequently cite the sources from which they compile word for word ; 
 they dehght in little historical details, anecdotes, traits of character, 
 descriptions of persons, for which they often neglect weightier 
 matters, and none of them is free from exaggeration, love of the 
 marvellous and credulity. Many of them indicate a religious spirit 
 and a theocratic theory of mundane events. Most of them make 
 the history of literature an object of importance, and hence they 
 adduce much information respecting the scholars and poets, their 
 lives and their writings, and, in the case of the poets, also speci- 
 mens of their poems. The writers of Universal History treat it 
 usually, according to Dynasties, of which the Hebrew patriarchs 
 and the kings of Israel usually form the first. Of all ancient and 
 foreign peoples, however, their accounts are very insipid and super- 
 ficial ; tliose of the Arabs are proportionately fuller, and next to 
 them those of the Persians. The biblical history is tricked out 
 with numerous traditions. The most of the annalists become more 
 copious as they approach their own time, and when they narrate 
 events of which they were eye-witnesses, or in which they had a 
 hand, they are apt to become prolix. The language is for the 
 most part simple, and with many it is even negligent. Only a 
 few have sought to give a rhetorical dress to their narratives, and 
 
 have written their works in poetic and rhymed prose («.^^), 
 
 which, to our taste, indeed, is for the most part intolerably inflated 
 and bombastic. Though historians have been named belonging 
 
 1 Gesenius,). c. p. 6l and 65. Comp. with this J. D. Miohaelis, Voir. z. Arab. Gr. 
 s. 57, ff. ; also Klaprotb, Asia Polygloita, p. 1—16. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES 01 THE OLD TESTAMENT. 121 
 
 to die early centuries of the Hedschra (seeFrahn on Ibn Foszlau, 
 p. 13, sq.), it was not till the third century of the Hedschra 
 that a proper and more comprehensive writing of history began, 
 when Heschara recorded the genealogy, and Abn Obediah the 
 battles of the Ante-Mubammedan Arabs ; Ibn Hescham (died 
 828) wrote on the genealogy of the Himjarites and a life of 
 Muhammed.' The oldest historian of that time now extant 
 is Al Wakedi, who recorded the wars and conquests of Mu- 
 hammed and his first followers, though not without fabulous 
 and superstitious tales (Kohler I, 62, fF.) Of more weight, 
 therefore, is Ibn Koteibah in his narratives of the most ancient 
 Arabic histories. The author of ♦'the first universal history is 
 Abu Dschafar Attabari (commonly called Taberita), a famous 
 Fakee in Bagdad (died 922) ; he is careful in the citing of his au- 
 thorities, and is authentic ; the most of the later writers have copied 
 from him (Kohler, s. 69, ff.) In the same century flourished Mas- 
 6udi, also a writer of Universal History (Notices et extraits de la 
 bibl. du Koi, torn. I. p. 1, sq.), and Hamza of Ispahan ; he wrote a 
 chronicle in ten books (Kohler, III. 263, flF.) In the tenth cen- 
 tury, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Eutychius (Said Ibn Batrik), 
 merits special notice ; in the twelfth, the biographers of Saladin, 
 Amadoddin his scribe, who writes in a very inflated style, and Bo- 
 haeddin, a follower of Saladin, and as such the eye-witness of many 
 of the events he narrates ; his style is much more pleasing (Schnur- 
 rer, p. 148, sq.) In the thirteenth century, the Christian Arabs 
 (Elmacin, Abulpharadj, &c.) competed with the Muhammedans 
 (Ibn al Atsir, Abu Sacharja, Ebn Chalican, &c.) in the writing of 
 comprehensive history. Among the latter the most distinguished 
 is the learned Sultan (independent prince) of Hamath in Syria, 
 Abulfeda, whose Annals of the Muhammedans furnish the richest 
 sources for the history of the East ; they are brought down to his 
 own time (1315), and have been continued to a later date by Ibn 
 Asschohnah (see Kohler, II., 54, fF. ; Schnurrer, p. 177, sq.) In 
 the fourteenth century, the namesoccur of Al Macrizi and Nuweiri, 
 in the fifteenth that of Achmed Ibn Arabshah (Arabsiades), the 
 eulogist of Timur, full of many poetic episodes, and written in an 
 
 1 Comp. Kohler, Naclirichten Voii pjinigen Arab. Gescliicbtsclir, im Repert. fur 
 Bihl. und Morgenl. Liter. IL 25, fl'. 
 
122 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 oratorical strain, but overdone and full of hyperboles (Schnurrer, p. 
 136, sq.), and that of Dsemaleddin, the historian of Egypt, his na- 
 tive country. In the sixteenth century, Emir MustaphaBen Hus- 
 sein wrote a history of the Chalifat of the Tartar, Turkish, and 
 Indian dynasties ; in the seventeenth, Abulabbas Achmed Addi- 
 maschki composed an Universal History, and Hadshi Chalfa a fa- 
 mous bibliographical work, &c. — With history among the Arabs, 
 geography stood closely connected, and their most famous histo- 
 rians of the more recent times are also their best geographers. In 
 the latter, however, they depend chiefly upon the Greeks, and 
 especially Ptolemy, so that their accounts of countries are of value 
 only when they treat of those -wiih which they were familiar.^ The 
 most famous geographers are Abulfeda, Ibn Haukal, Massudi, Al 
 Edrisi, Ibn al Wardi, Abdollatiph, Ibn Foszlan, Ibn Batuta, &c. 
 
 The philoHophical efforts of the Arabs, as they were put forth 
 especially under the Abbassides, allied themselves to the Greek 
 schools of Plato and Aristotle (see more particularly on this the 
 works on the History of Philosophy.) This communicated to the 
 language a new kind of cultivation, and a speculative depth espe- 
 cially pleasing to the raystical philosophers, so that the most ab- 
 stract, and even in our modes of speech the most peculiar concep- 
 tions (as Absolute, Abstraction, &c.) find their expression in the 
 Arabic. With the philosophy of the Arabs, their theological and 
 juridical science stands in immediate relation. From the second 
 century of the Hedschra writers in all these departments arose 
 among the Muhammedans whose works are of importance (Tholuck, 
 die speculative Trinitaetslehre des spaet. Or. s. 3. fF. — Bernstein de 
 initiis et originibus religionum in Oriente Dispers. p. 26, sq.) 
 
 Also in the /wa//itt^wia^/ca/ sciences the Arabs.allied themselves to 
 the Greeks, though here also they carried out independent investi- 
 gations. Astronomy, especially is indebted to them, for this 
 became an object of chief study in their schools of learning. " It 
 was principally in the department of observation that they made 
 use of it ; as regards the theory, they retained it in much the same 
 state as they found it in the astronomical system of Ptolemy" (see 
 
 1 Ou their geograijhical literature, see Frahn ou Ibn Foszlan, p. xiv. sq. 
 
 2 The learned travels of the Arabs are in this respect especially valuable. Frahn, 1. 
 c. p. vi. sq. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGTIAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 123 
 
 the classical work of Ideler, Untersucbungen liber den Urspr. und 
 die Bedeut. der Sternnamen, especially s. XLIII. fF., compared 
 with Gesenius, lib. cit. s. 67, fF.)^ 
 
 Since the 15th century, the Arabic has undergone, especially as 
 a spoken tongue, a marked change, which has given to the lan- 
 guage a new character. Not only in the provinces remote from 
 the motherland, but also in Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, the vulgar- 
 Arabic took the place of the ancient written language. The latter 
 consequently suffered in point of cultivation and variety, but never- 
 theless the language returned considerably to ancient simplicity and 
 to its original form, so that it approximates much more to the He- 
 brew and the Aramaic than the older x\rabic, and hence furnishes 
 much that is valuable for the profounder study of these languages. 
 Of foreign words it is chiefly from the Turkish that the vulgar- 
 Arabic has borrowed.^ As respects grammars of the vulgar- 
 Arabic, the best are those of Bombay (Vindob. 1800), Herbin 
 (Paris, 1803), Caussin de Perceval (Paris, 1824.) Comp. also 
 Habicht Epistolae aliquot Arabb. (Vratislav. 1824.) 
 
 Among helps to the learning of the Old Arabic, are to be named 
 the following. The Grammar has been especially treated by 
 Erpenius (ed. A. Schultens ed. 2. 1707), J. D. Michaehs (2te 
 Aufl. Gott., l781),Jahn(Wien, 1790), De Sacy.(ed. 2 Paris, 1829), 
 Rosenmiiller (Auszug aus de Sacy, Lips., 1819), Lumsden (Cal- 
 cutta, 1813), Ewald (Gott., 1831, 33, 2 voll.) The Prosody has 
 been handled according to the theories of the national Grammarians 
 especially in Freytag's Arab. Verskunst (Bonn, 1830.) Of Lexi- 
 cons may be named Giggeii Thesaurus Ling. Arab. (Mediol., 1032, 
 4 vol. foL), Castelli in Lex. tieptaglotton, Golius (Leyden, 1053), 
 Meninsky (ed. de Jenisch, Vienn., 1780, 4 voll., including also the 
 Persic and Turkish), and the recently published work of Freytag, 
 which is intended to occupy four volumes. A dictionary of spe- 
 cial value is the Lexicon Arab, of Willmet (Rotterd., 1784, 4to), 
 adapted to the Coran, Hariri and the Vita Timuri.'* Of Arabic 
 
 1 On the Dtitural-hisiorical, ami rueclical sciences of the Arabs, wherein they chiefly 
 learned from the Syrians, see Sprengel, in the Hall. Encycl. 1. c. s. 69, fl'. 
 
 '- Niebulir has stated too strongly the difference between the vulgar Arabic and the 
 older written language (Besehreib. von Arab. s. 84.) See, on the othtr side, some ex- 
 cellent remarks in Caussin de Perceval, gram. Arab Vulg. Pr. p. II. Comp. also Jahn, 
 Einl. ins A. T. I. 2G7. 
 
 3 See the full literaluie of the Grammars and Lexicons in Schnurrer Bill. Arab.]). 
 1—110, 
 
121 nisTonv of the 
 
 Chrestomathies the principal are tliose of Rosenmiiller (Arab. Ele- 
 ment, und Leseb. Leipz.. 1799), tbe Works of Jahn (Vienn., 
 1802), Wahl, Hirt, Rink, Oberleitner, de Sacy, Rosegarten (Lips., 
 1828), Humbert (Paris, 1834), Freytag, &c. 
 
 From the intimate connection from the earliest times between 
 South Arabia and Ethiopia (comp. Winer, Reallex. I. 274, fF.),it 
 has arisen that we have in the Ethiopia language a remnant of 
 the old himjaritic speech lost even to the Arabic itself. In this 
 ancient written language (the Geez language), we possess a trans- 
 lation of the Bible and other church writings, of which the most 
 important is the translation of the Book of Enoch. Tlie language 
 has a simpler character than the more cultivated Arabic, and ap- 
 proaches more to the Hebrew and Aramaic idiom ; in the 14th 
 century, it was driven out by Amharic, and is now only a language 
 of learning. The Grammar has been written by H. I-udolf, ed 2. 
 Francof. ad. M. 1702, fol. Comp. with Hupfeld, Exercitationes 
 Aethiopicae, Lips., 1825, 4to. H. Ludolf also composed a Lexi- 
 con with the aid of many MSS. (ed 2 Francof. ad M. 1G99, fol.) 
 Comp. Gesenius in the Halle Encycl. TI. 110, IF., the Travels of 
 Bruce, Riippell, &c. 
 
 § 25. HEBREW LANGUAGE ITS NAMES AND DESIGNATIONS. 
 
 The name Hebrew language is undoubtedly a designation of the 
 language spoken by the Hebrew people. For, that the name 
 Qi-^^V signifies the perished, obsolete, and hence denotes a dead 
 language (Augusti Einl. § 19), is against the meaning of "^^y, and 
 is altogether without sense. This brings us to consider the de- 
 signation Hebrews, as a name of the people in its relations to 
 other names of the people. 
 
 The first mention of this name occurs Gen. x. 21, " Shem had 
 also children ; he is the father of all the sons of Heber (i^^l 
 •^^y.") This description of the Semitic genealogies shows that 
 the author designed to render noticeable the connection between 
 Shem the common ancestor and a tribe of especial importance 
 descended from him through Heber. The descent is more fully 
 stated in vcr. 24 (Shem— Arphachsad — Shelah — Heber), and 
 
ORIGIN'AL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 125 
 
 in ch. xi. 14 this genealogy is resumed and continued down to 
 AbraLam. In the time of Plialeg the son of Heher the disper- 
 sion of the nations over the earth occurred (x. 25, comp. xi. 1, fF.). 
 Thus Heber was the last of the patriarchs descended from Shem 
 previous to the division of the peoples, and the beginning of 
 new lines which, in the midst of the mass of peoples that diverged 
 into manifold branches, founded and propagated a peculiar chosen 
 race. Hence in Genesis Abraham is called a descendant of Heber 
 ("i-^l^^pf) ; to him the misfortune of Lot, his relative, was notified 
 as his ally by race, who as long as he was in the vicinity was espe- 
 cially bound to hasten to help him (comp. the context of the pas- 
 sage xiv. 13.) Thus the descendants of Abraham called them- 
 selves Hebrews (Gen. xl. 15), and were also by others so named 
 (Gen. xxxix. 14, 17 ; xli. 12). — When, however, the people were 
 divided into twelve tribes, the name they received as most appro- 
 priate was taken from that of the new father of the race, Jacob or 
 Israel (the latter more used in prose, the former in poetry), the latter 
 involving a theocratic reference (hence ^/^ti, ~)pip, Ci^'^tL'''' V'^^^ 
 H^-^^1 j-)"li^. &c.), and accordingly this word may be used 
 alone in an emphatic sense for the right, the true Israel. (Ps. 
 xxiv. ; Micah ii. 7 ; Hos. viii. 2.) The name Hebrew retains 
 merely an ethnographical sense, and is used only where the people 
 in their purely political and external aspect, not as the people of 
 the covenant, are spoken of. So throughout the Pentateuch and 
 the older historical books. At a later period the name passed 
 almost out of use, as after the separation of the kingdoms Israel, in 
 opposition to Judah, ceased to be a genuine theocratic designation, 
 and became gradually one merely political (in I Kings xii., where 
 we have the regular use of 7i«^"^fe,'''^-~)5> we may detect the transi- 
 tion to this usage.) Only the Prophets, viewing this separation 
 from a theocratic point of view, use the name Israel not in the 
 simply historical, but in the old theocratic sense (see Gesenius on 
 Is. i. 371), so that with them it may have either a good or a bad 
 sub-meaning (Hengstenberg, Christol. II. 273.) 
 
 This in itself sufficiently coherent usage of the names Hebrew 
 and Israelite, rests on the derivation of both as given in the Scrip- 
 tures. With regard to the latter, no doubt has been felt in this 
 respect by any ; but of the former, various have been the meanings 
 
12G nrsTORY of the 
 
 adopted. Some Fathers of the church have erroneously derived it 
 from Abraham (Ambrose, Augustin.) The chief source of mis- 
 understanding was the LXX. rendering of Gen. xiv. 13 {airri'y- 
 fyeiXov "A/Bpa/jL tu> irepaTrj), which many of the Fathers took for 
 the correct meaning, and which in recent times has found a de- 
 fender especially in Walton (Prolegg. p. G8, sq. Dathe [in the 
 Polyglott, p. 15]), and with less acuteness has been supported by 
 some later rationalist theologians (see Gesenius Gesch.s. 1 1. Winer 
 Reallex. I. 555.) Those who adopt this view take the epithet at- 
 tached to Abraham's name '^•^3.^^)7 in the sense of advena, and 
 refer it to his crossing of the Euphrates when he came from 
 Mesopotamia towards Canaan. No one has ever been able to show 
 any grounds in Scripture for this appellation, and it does not at all 
 suit even the context of Gen. xiv. 13, where such an appellation 
 would be purely meaningless. 1 This is also confuted clearly by the 
 poetical usage in the Pentateuch of^^.^ ii^stead of *i'^3,j^, as Jacob is 
 used for the descendants of Jacob (Numb. xxiv. 24.) Utterly 
 futile is the reason assigned by Gesenius that it is a case of my- 
 thical derivation(Hebrewsfrom Heber)of the same historical worth 
 with the Greek derivations, Aeolians from Aeolus, &c. We may 
 pass this by as a mere dogmatical presumption ; the groundless- 
 ness and arbitrariness of it are manifest from this, that the name 
 Israelites might just as well be ascribed to a mythical origin. 
 Walton's argument that as nothing remarkable is related of Heber, 
 a name might as well have been given to Abraham from any other 
 of the patriarchs who lived between, is set aside by what has been 
 already stated. But Genesis speaks distinctly of a family of 
 Heber, which dwelt in Chaldea, whilst the other descendants of 
 Heber were dispersed (x. 25), and here arose the house of Abra- 
 ham's father (xii. 1.) He remained, therefore, in that case a very 
 important ancestor of Israel. Moreover, against this etymology 
 the following considerations may be adduced. 1. The grammar. 
 For if we do not derive the form immediately from the verb ^^J^ 
 as the older writers do — in which sense also Hartmann (Ling. 
 Einl. s. 159) translates Q'^'^l^i^n' those who have travelled over, 
 which would require D'^-)^j^n» '^^'^P* -^^- xxxix. 11) — but, with 
 
 1 Let any one consider only tbe unmistakenble antithesis between •''^asn D-^as and 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 127 
 
 Gespnius, derive it from '^y^, i.e. '^'^^^Tl ''y? the land lying be- 
 yond the Euphrates, and suppose the Canaanites to have thus 
 named the company of Abraham, we shall here also be in per- 
 plexity. For in that case i"^^,^ must always mean " an inhabitant 
 of that land," as '^215!^' " ^^ inhabitant of the north," so that it 
 could not denote the immigration of Abraham, and thereby would 
 omit the circumstance which was the characteristic one. 2. Had 
 the circumstance of the immigration occasioned the name, and had 
 the latter been on this account given by the Canaanites, it vvould 
 have been applicable equally to the descendants of Lot (the Am- 
 monites and Moabites.) The only explanation of this circum- 
 stance is that by the term Hebrews were designated the proper des- 
 cendants of Heber in a restricted sense, and the Abrahamic 
 family assumed this name to distinguish them from all the des- 
 cendants of Heber who were not in that particular line. 
 
 The name Hebrew language does not occur in the Old Testament. 
 In place of this we have once )^y2 nCto' ^^- ^^^- 1^' emphatically 
 the language of the holy land consecrated to Jehovah, as contrasted 
 with that of the profane Egypt. After the overthrow of the kingdom 
 of Israel, the names Judah and Jews become the designation of the 
 whole people (Jer. xxxiv. 9; Dan.iii. 8 ; Esth. iii. 6., &c.) Hence, 
 though the expression Jews' language occurs (Is. xxxvi. 11, 13) as 
 a designation of the language of the kingdom of Judah ; yet, in 
 Nehem. xiii. 24, we find this expression already used in the wider 
 sense. 
 
 As the difference between the hellenistic Jews and those of Palestine 
 became more and more marked, the designations 'Iovhato<i and 
 'E/Bpalo^; came to be used distinctively — the former for the nation as 
 such, the latter for the Jews of Palestine (comp Carpzov, Exercitt. 
 Philon. inEpist. ad Hebraeos, Prolegg. p. 3, sq.) Even the classical 
 writers observe this distinction (corap. the passages cited by Reland, 
 Palast, p. 15.) Where the national literature and language is spoken 
 of, the proper expression is i/3pa'iKo<i (comp. Hug, Einl. ins N. T. 
 II. 47.) Thus, in the Prologue of the son of Sirach, the Hebrew 
 (6/8paia-Tl\67o/i6i^a) is contrasted with every other speech (erejoay 
 yXwaa'av.) Hence the yXaxraa tmv 'E^patoiv, rj E/3paLK7] 8iaXe«T09, 
 &c. It does not in this usage denote simply the old Hebrew (as e.g. 
 \n Joseph. Antiqq. 1, 2), but also the later Aramaic speech of the 
 
I 28 ANTIQUITY OF THE 
 
 country of Palestine (Jos. de Maccab. §. 14 ; and in the New 
 Testament frequently as e. gr. John v. 2 ; xix. 23.i) In the later 
 Jewish writers (as in the Targumists), the Hebrew language is often 
 called i<^ty-T>ip 'j\2?^ comp. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Eabh. p. 1160, in 
 contrast to the Aramaic (^''m 'T^^) comp. e. gr. the Book Cosri 
 P. II., p. 132, Buxtorf. 
 
 § 26. ANTIQUITY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 The Scripture informs us historically that after the Flood, there 
 prevailed a general community of language. Genes, xi. 1." The 
 pride of men, showing itself in deeds (ver. 4), was, by Divine 
 intervention, so frustrated, that exactly the opposite of what they 
 aimed at, viz., the securing a common point of unity, was the result 
 of their undertaking; their speech was confused, and they were 
 scattered over the face of the earth, ver. 9. 
 
 Here a question has at all times arisen interesting to theologians. 
 Of what sort was that common language of the foretime, and in what 
 relations did it stand to those languages, especially, which we find 
 at a later period among the decendants of Abraham ? It is clear that 
 this question can be satisfactorily answered only by those who regard 
 this part of the biblical narrative as true history. Those who, like 
 the mass of recent interpreters, look at it from a mythical point 
 of view, cannot possibly obtain any results. Gesenius (s. 14) 
 says that, as respects the antiquity and origin of the Hebrew lan- 
 guage, if we do not take this mythical account we find ourselves 
 totally deserted by the historian. This ought to bring us back to 
 the biblical statement, since we find nothing in it incompatible 
 with historical veracity, and it has in its support the analogy of 
 other traditions, — of the indigenous Babylonians lAbydenus in 
 Euseb. Praep. Evang. IX. 41, Chron. Arm. p. 51, 59, ed. Aucher), 
 
 1 The passage in Pbilo (de vita Mosis 1. II. p. 509 ed. Colon.), according to which the 
 original of the Pentateuch was written in Chaldaic (that this is the meaning the context 
 clearly proves, cf p. 510), sliows how much the Alexandrians of that time liad lost the 
 kaowli'dge of the difference of the dialt>ct, and is to be ascribed to Pljilo's ignorance in 
 this department. 
 
 ^ The words nsia and a'^'^31, which are frequently erroneously construed, stand here 
 in no other sense than nas and D"'">31, Ps. xix. 4, language, speech, and express conse- 
 quently the minutely exact, the thoroughly complete unity of the languages. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 129 
 
 and of the Greeks (Philo, de confus Hog. p. 251, ed. Colon. 
 Comp. Plato, Polit. p. 272.) The reasons which some have urged 
 against the literal interpretation of the statement out of the nar- 
 rative itself are hardly worth notice. They begin with one of a 
 dogmatical kind: "Monstrous and contradictory (? ?) miracles 
 must in such a case have occurred." As if Rationalism had fully 
 accounted for the " miracle" of the diversity of languages, and did 
 not stand in respect of this on the very same spot as the sages of 
 antiquity, who ascribed this difference to the beginning of the 
 world (Diod. Sic. lib. I. init.), which is as little satisfactory as the 
 naturalist mode of accounting for evil in general. It is only when 
 we take into view the sin of man, on the one hand, the proud, self- 
 flattering, egoistic principle in the human mind, and on the other the 
 Providence of God working in the predisposed separation a higher 
 unity (by means of a chosen race), both of which are excellently 
 combined in Scripture, that this problem can be satisfactorily 
 solved. — But this narrative is also incompatible with " the history 
 of the Shemitic family, whose dialects of a later date are so allied 
 that a common language must be regarded as lying at their source." 
 There is here this much of truth, that the linguistic difference gra- 
 dually manifested itself more and more widely, and increased as the 
 language was cultivated and the races of people multiplied. But 
 that this does not exclude the supposition of a difference beginning 
 in and proceeding from the fact narrated is clear, for in that 
 case an absolute opposition must have occurred between the ori- 
 ginal oneness of speech and the later divergence,2 the very opposite 
 of which is expressly maintained. — In fine, it is asserted that Gen. 
 X. 25 is in opposition to this story, for there we are told that Noah 
 divided the earth among his sons, whence the variety of languages 
 would arise. (So Gabler, s. 226.) But of this there is not a word 
 in the passage cited ; on the contrary, the statement 'r^'^j^n rT^7Di 
 
 1 The majority of modern objectors do not trouble tliemselves to assign any reasons, 
 as if the matter was one to be decided by mere autbority ; which is exactly in keeping with 
 Eationalism, than which no faith is more thoroughly based on mere groundless assertion. 
 Gabler, in his Urgeschichte 11. 2, s. 224, chiefly enters into this question, and to him 
 our strictures principally relate, 
 
 2 [I suppose the author means here, that liad the later divergences been the result of 
 some inherent tendency in the language, and not such as an occurrence like the one in 
 question might occasion, the result in process of time would have been, not mere dialec- 
 tical differences, but a total distinction of language.— Tr.] 
 
 I 
 
130 HFSTORV OF THE 
 
 (the earth icas divided) presupposes the narrative before us, and 
 stands in the strictest connection with it. — Moreover, the mythical 
 interpretation of this passage, as it has lately been set forth by 
 Hartmann, Forsch. lib. d. Pent. s. 407, ff., contains an inevitable 
 self-contradiction which is utterly fatal lo it. We must regard the 
 object of the author to have been, on the one hand, to give a phi- 
 losopJiical explanation of the diversity of tongues, and, on the 
 other, to furnish an etymological explanation of the word Babel. 
 Hence arises the question as to the accuracy of this etymology. If 
 it be erroneous, the historical basis of the whole story is undoubt- 
 edly shattered ; but if it be correct, the whole story must be re- 
 garded as historical, for it is impossible to account for the rise of 
 such a name better than the Scripture does. Some indeed have 
 hastily pronounced the derivation of the word 'n^^ from 773, erro- 
 neous (see e. gr. Hartmann, s. 409) ; but Gesenius justly deter- 
 mines that the form '^^s, = 73,7^1 confusio (comp. the altogether 
 
 analogous Syr. M^^, coxfusio sermonis, balbutitio, and forms 
 like HDOil^ = nDIODlS' &c.), is a perfectly regular derivation from 
 7^^'^ and does not venture to decide for [though he suggests] an- 
 other for the word. 2 It is inconceivable that people should from 
 remote antiquity give the name of Confusion to a district already 
 known by the name of Shinar, had not some definite historical oc- 
 currence given occasion for it. 
 
 Eeturning, then, to the ancient view of this passage, we find the 
 earlier theologians divided between two opinions by it. The one, 
 which is allied to the Jewish opinion (comp. the Targum on Gen. 
 xi. I), regards as the original language that which continued in the 
 family of Eber ; the other relinquishes the attempt to discover the 
 
 1 Etymon ... linguae lieliraeae et Syriacaerationibus ^j^flf/ieaccomwiorfati/m est. TLes. 
 Ling. Hebr. I. 212. 
 
 2 Two other etymologies bave been oifered, but both are so manifestly forced that they 
 need not occasion any hesitation. Eiehhorn's derivation V -» i » l i. porta, d. b. aula 
 Beli, foists in a word borrowed from the later Arabic, and presupposes a totally different 
 form (Vaa), so that I cannot conceive bow Hartmann could call it "analogously 
 formed." The suggestion of Gesenius that VaS ^= ^a rr^a means domus Beli, has also 
 the form of the word against it. n^a thus abbreviated occurs only in the latest usage of 
 the language (in one word in the Bible and there difTerently, Geseu. p. 193), and the 
 form 72 never occurs in ancient usage. 
 
 3 Comp. Loscher de causis ling. Heb. p. 13, who says, "cquilem qui in linguarum 
 
 I 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES Of THE OLD TESTAMENT. 131 
 
 original language, and derives the Hebrew from the Canaanitish 
 without attempting to investigate its antiquity further. The latter, 
 favoured by Grotins, has been especially developed, not without 
 acuteness, by Le Clerc in his Treatise de Ling. Heb., and him the 
 later advocates of it follow. — We grant at once here that much of 
 what was adduced by the older theologians who contended for the 
 former opinion, and even by the acute and learned Loscher, is 
 founded in mistake (as e. gr. the affinity of the Hebrew with other 
 tongues was by far too strongly stated), and that here and there it 
 bears too much of a dogmatical character. Nevertheless, in their 
 opinion there is more sense than in the other, and one cannot but 
 wonder that Gesenius (loc. cit.) could so slightly pass over this 
 point, especially as in Hezel's Gesch. d. Hebr. Sprache, s. 14, fF. at 
 least, some better reasonings in support of it may be found. On a 
 closer investigation, from more points of view than one, the old 
 orthodox opinion so commends itself that we may regard tlie posi- 
 tion that the later language of the descendants of Abraham stood 
 at least in a very intimate relation to the original tongue, as one 
 which, so far as in such a case is possible, is well founded. 
 
 1. This opinion has much probability and force in itself. Lan- 
 guage is not something that may be detached from the entire life of 
 men ; it is rather the faithful impression of the ideas that animate 
 men. For the pure apprehension and preservation, therefore, of the 
 divine revelations, they could not be severed from the organs by 
 which they were presented; here the idea without an expression 
 corresponding to it is something lifeless, and already the great 
 variety of the whole symbolical modes of expression of heathen 
 antiquity indicates the striving after adequate modes of designation 
 in which they failed ; whereas, on the contrary, in the Hebrew 
 
 orientalium studio omuium sunt versalissimi, iid uinim omnes Ebvaeam matrem et aiiti- 
 quissimaro linguarum omuium esse prouuutiaut." 
 
 1 Among more recent scholars, Pareau excellently determines the point thus (lust. p. 
 25) . Perantiquus erat sermo Hebraicus, cujus origines ex omnium peritiorum consensu 
 ad aetatem pertinent, gentis Isrsieliticae originilius multo anteriorem. Immo videtnr 
 cum generis humani piimordiis exstitisse atque ipse fuisse sermo, qui diluvio aquarum 
 cum Noacho superstes in orbe instaurato unus erat, omuibusque continue bominibus 
 communis, Gen xi. 1. Postea apud diversas gentes in locis invicem vicinis Labitantes 
 receptus illiquid contraxit diversitatis, qualis in unius ejusdemque linguae dialectis cer- 
 nitur: apitd Hebr-aeos tamen. iit veri est simile, proxime ad primaevam suam indolem 
 rationemque accidens, omnium clarissimo retinuit illius indicio simplicitatis quae puer» 
 orum propria est, ipsamque hand obscure lu-guit, humani generis infantiam. 
 
 I 2 
 
182 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 foretime sucb a method of teaching is not found. — We see, however, 
 these revelations of God attached to a race hy which they were 
 carefully preserved, and the carefulness which we must ascribe to 
 ancient tradition makes it all the more improbable that here the 
 essence would be suffered to be severed from the form, and the 
 latter cease to be the faithful bearer of the former. If even in late 
 times it was held as a principle of antiquity : 
 
 iraTpiovi TTapaSoyas as 6 ofXtjXiKa^ y^povto 
 Ki.KTnfxtd\ oxjSzl'i aiiTU KaTaf3(l\Xe.i Xoyoi — 1 
 
 how much more are we bound to attribute the greatest certainty 
 therein to the primitive race which not only hved amidst a simpler 
 state of nature, but also in possession of the revelations of the true 
 God.2 
 
 2. Such a settled state of the language is apparent also in the 
 Hisiory. If the Israelites during four centuries preserved as a 
 people their language in Egypt, we have in this a not unimportant 
 analogy for the earlier relations of an individual and much smaller 
 tribe. And if the account in Gen. xxxi. 46, 47, directly shows 
 what care the patriarchs took for the upholding of their family 
 tongue, especially in districts where another was spoken, we are led 
 to conclude that this was their custom at that time. 
 
 Here we must take notice of a recent opinion which certainly 
 directly contradicts ours. It is said that the Hebrew language was 
 already in the time of Abraham confined to Canaan, that it was 
 the vernacular tongue of the Canaanites, and that Abraham derived 
 it from them (Gesenius, s. 16.) Now, on the one hand it is not to 
 be denied that overwhelming reasons necessitate the conclusion 
 that the Canaanites in the earliest period spoke Hebrew ; the 
 proper names which indicate a clearly Hebrew etymology (d;^^ 
 P'1^-^5'^52' 'iTT'T^'^li^' &c.), the circumstance that, though there 
 was abundant intercourse between the Hebrews and Canaanites, no 
 mention is made of any difference of language, and the analogy of 
 the PhcBnician^ vouch for this; nor has it ever been denied by the 
 
 1 Euripid. Baccli. 182 [201 ed. Dindorf Oxon. 1833.] 
 
 2 [I have translated tliis paragraph as 1 best could, but I must confess the author's 
 meaning has not reached my mind. — Tb.] 
 
 3 Other reasons are adduced by Gesenius (p. 17), but they are less tenable ; especially 
 such a passage as Is. xix. 18 cannot be urged with this view ; see preceding §. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 133 
 
 older theologians (see e. gr. Fuller, Miscell. Sacr. iv. 4.) But on 
 the other hand, the supposition that Abraham borrowed his language 
 from the vernacular language of the inhabitants of Canaan is 
 utterly arbitrary. For (1) in that case we should have liad in the 
 Hebrew a mixed language ; not one so pure, and which, even in 
 the earhest times, existed as an independant dialecti (comp. Gen. 
 xlix.) 9. We should in that case have found traces of a poly- 
 theistic and heathen origin, which might be derived either from 
 the Cauaanites or the Arameans (comp. Genes, xxxi ; Jos. xxiv. 2.) 
 But of this not one certain indication can we find though the 
 whole history is versant in matters connected with religion and 
 worship.2 — -This brings us to the only correct supposition, that 
 though the Canaauites used the language of Abraham, the latter 
 brought with him his own speech and abode faithful to it. We 
 fully recognise here the force of Loscher's Dilemma: si ea, quam 
 nunc Ebraeam nominamus, lingua non asset primaeva, aut ab 
 idololatris aut a verae religionis cultoribus orta esset ; non ab his, 
 qifi sane linguam, quae primam revelationem attulit custoditque, 
 studiose retinuissent, non ab illis, sic enim plena esset idololatriae 
 vestigiis, ac superstitionem ubivis redoleret (de causis 1. H. p. 23). 
 3. There are passages in the most ancient documents which, 
 unless violence be done to them, cannot be explained in any other 
 way than by assuming an identity with the Hebrew idiom. Thus 
 the song of Lamech, Gen. iv. 23, 24, which, however puzzling as 
 to its purport and expression, nevertheless is indubitably a relic of 
 primeval poetry. As, on the one hand, it would be very difficult to 
 believe that Moses took it upon him to make alterations on such 
 traditions, in which case they would have borne another and more 
 
 1 Consider e. gr. the Roman language, composed of many various elements; ste 
 Babr, Gescb. d. Bom. Lit. § 1. 
 
 2 Geseuius himself admits this, and thereby in-volves himself in a contradiction. The 
 only example that can be adduced for the opposite is the word a'^ri^; Even if we 
 adopt the grammatical explanation of this plural given by Ewald (Composit. d. Genesis s. 
 32, Krit. Gr. s. 641) as perfectly just [Ewald thinks that the plural Elohim was used 
 originally to express the idea of the Godhead generally, just as the Latins used the words 
 Dii -and Penates without meaning thereby to designate any god in particular, which, with 
 all deference to so learned a scholar, is a piece of nonsense.— Te.] ; yet the historical, 
 which is similar to the old one proposed by Le Clerc, altogether breaks down, and has no 
 connexion with the other. To ascribe polytheistic notions to Abraham, and to impute 
 the embracing of them to genuine Hebrew antiquity, is truly a vain conceit which should 
 long ago have bren relinquished. Comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, Bibl. Tbeol. s. 162. 
 
134 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 intelligible character (comp. Lowtb, De poesi Sac. Heb. p. 78, 
 ed. Micliaelis), so, on the other, it is as little credible that in the 
 times preceding his, when the people were restricted to tradition, 
 any such attempt would be made. It may be added that the poe- 
 tical passage Gen. ix. 25 — 27 favours the same conclusion, for there 
 the Paronomasia J^Zr^ .... /t^q^, ver. 27, in which so weighty 
 an element of the thought lies, bespeaks it a primeval witness, pre- 
 served by tradition. All this carries us back to the existence of pri- 
 mitive traditions, going greatly beyond those of Abraham, of which 
 no other language but the Hebrew can be regarded as the original. 
 4. Of especial weight for our object is the great multitude of 
 proper names (names of persons and places), which occur in the 
 oldest portions of Genesis, and the Hebrew derivation of which 
 either appears at once oris evidenced by Paronomasial collocations 
 or. by the etymologies actually given, comp. Gen. ii. 23, ^^i^ — 
 
 ntp^i^; iii. 10, rif]-, iv. 1, p2 ^i"«^^ n^,^; i^- 6, 1^2 from -j«);3, 
 vers. 12, 14 ; iv. 25, ]-)^ from p;^p ; iv. 26, 1^^2'i^/, v. 29, ni^. 
 &c. Comp. Loscher, 1. c, p. 9 and 50, sq. Some^ have variously 
 urged in opposition that these names need not be original, as they 
 may have been translated into the Hebrew. But that the author 
 at least regarded them as original Hebrew words, and did not 
 permit to himself any such meddling with them, appears from the 
 following considerations : [a) The etymologies adduced by the 
 writer are opposed to such an opinion, inasmuch as the later given 
 interpretations of the proper names are intelligible only on the 
 supposition that these words themselves are Hebrew. These names 
 with their meaning form an essential element in the History, and 
 hence the credibility of the latter stands intimately connected with 
 that of the name and its signification.^ {h) Were such a trans- 
 
 1 Comp. Grotius ad Genes, xi. 1. Le Clerc, de ling. TIeb. § 11, Geseuius Lib. cit. 
 s. 13: who says, " not considering tb>it these names may have been originally coined or 
 altered by the Hebrews." 
 
 2 In no point have recent enquirers gone further astray in their jmlgmenfs than in 
 regard to the historical basis of these etymologies. The ancient significancy of names, 
 so much the more important in an age when the want of history made it necessary to 
 link events with such names, is fully recognised, and yet there are people who see in 
 these etymologies nothing but the play of an unheard of caprice, the meaningless con- 
 jectures of later times, pure inventions of the writer, &c. (Comp. e.gr. liartmann, 
 Forschungen, iib. d. Pent. s. 263, if., and the writings there cited.) An appeal has been 
 made to the customs of other nations of antiquity in sopport of this notion, but these 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESIAMENT. Io5 
 
 formation conceded, we should expect to find it most manifest in 
 the case of those words the etymology of which, from the Hebrew, 
 is most diflBciilt, as is the case with many words in the genealogical 
 rolls, Gen. x. The faithful retention of these directly prov^ that 
 no alteration was made in the names, since otherwise there would 
 have been occasion here to pursue the design of making their mean- 
 ing more clear, (c) Where names had been altered we find tlie 
 practice of noting this observed carefully in Genesis (comp. xiv. 
 7, 8; xxiii. 19; xxviii. 19), and from this we may infer that the 
 other proper names are conscientiously retained in the Hebrew 
 idiom, otherwise analogy would have led to the name which had 
 been transmuted into Hebrew, being given in its original form. 
 (d) The custom of all other historians favours this view (as Vi- 
 tringa justly says, Obss. Sacr. I. 45: Observatum est,historiographis 
 veteribus minime fuisse in more positum, in bistoria mutare no- 
 mina propria.) Vitringa with justice appeals to the practice 
 of Herodotus in regard to foreign names and their interpretation : 
 a-^ehov he koI irdvTa ra ovvo^iara rcou dedv e^ Alr/VTTTOV iXrj- 
 XvOev ek ttjv 'EWaSa, II. 50, and according to this prin- 
 ciple he translates the Egyptian names into the corresponding 
 Greek ; comp. Plato, Critias, p. 113, Creuzer Symbolik II., 289, fF. 
 It has, however, been objected that, nevertheless, rciany cases occur 
 of proper names which have been translated into another idiom, 
 where they retain a correct etymology according to their meaning, 
 (as, e.ffr., the name UriXovaiov derived by the Greeks from irrfKo'i, 
 Jilth, and this in correspondence with the Egyptian name Sin, 
 Strabo XVII. p. 552, Casaub.) comp. Le Clerc 1. cit. § 2. But 
 Walton has already justly replied to this (Proleg. p. 75 [in the 
 Polyglott T. I. p. 1(3]) : Etsi historici vel interpretes, qui aliarum 
 nationum res gestas scribunt vel in suam linguam vertuut, ali- 
 
 prove exantly the opposite, viz., tbe universally acknowledged siguiflcancy of names 
 which, in narratives so ancient and so near to their sources as those of Scripiure, vindi- 
 cate for themselves the authority of pure lustory. As respects tbe objection taken from 
 tbe alleged erroneousness grammatically of the etymologies, there is much to be said in 
 reply to it. It has not been considered here that tbe proper names retain unusual forms 
 which are not elsewhere to be found in Hebrew (Geseuius, Gesch. d. Heb. Spr. s. 48, S.) 
 Much that is grammatically anomalous occurs here, as, e.yr., the etymology of DB^i 
 
 Exod. ii. 22, where for the last syllable oB = Da, we must go to the Arab. 3- (which of- 
 fers itself historically as a fit comparison.) In fine, much that has been treated as 
 etymology is only Paranomasia. Comp. Simonis Onomasticon, p. 6, v.p. 13, ff. 
 
136 
 
 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 quando ufficia eL dignitates, et interdum ex causa special! propria 
 noraina, in quibus emphasis vel energia quaedam latet, sua lingua 
 explicant; hoc tamen constanter per totam historiae seriem ab aliquo 
 fieri, p'raesertim quum nullibi tale quid historicus vel interpres lectori 
 insinuet, absolute nego, nee ullus talis historicus uominari potest/ 
 
 § 27. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HEBREW AS A WRIT- 
 TEN LANGUAGE. 
 
 1. Though for the reasons above assigned we must vindicate for 
 the Hebrew the highest antiquity, its proper interest to the biblical 
 student nevertheless begins where it enters into existence as a 
 written language. Here even it presents the imposing spectacle of 
 a language issuing from the deepest shadows of antiquity, and 
 which, from its sublime simplicity, must be called the basis and the 
 key of all the other Oriental languages. — The question, formerly 
 much discussed, but too often answered unsatisfactorily and one- 
 sidedly, as to the wealth or riches, the culture or rudeness, of the 
 Hebrew language,' as it is immediately a relative one, can be pro- 
 perly appreciated only by our viewing the language, in the first 
 instance, in its relations to other dialects, and then in itself, both 
 in a grammatical and a lexicographical point of view. — So also the 
 judgment upon the stability of the language has been on several 
 sides exaggerated as e. gr. by Jahn. Einl. I. 226 : " The Hebrew 
 in Neheraiah, Malachi, Ezra, Haggai, and Zechariah, is essentially 
 the same as that which Moses wrote 1000 or 1100 years before ;" 
 see the same decision, though reached from a very different point 
 of view, in Gesenius, s. 19. The hue of the language is certainly 
 not essentially different ; and this could not well be otherwise, 
 partly on account of the fixed character of the Semitic languages 
 generally, partly on account of the influence of the'Pentateuch on 
 
 1 This argument has been already well urged in the Book Cosri, P. II., p. 132, ed. 
 Buxtorff. 
 
 - There were some called " Hostes Hebiaismi," thus described by Loscher: Omnes 
 qui vel professi sunt ejus odium atque coutemtum vel eundem tanquam rem rauci, in 
 nertum inutilem traducendo, exulceratum animum osteuderunt; de caus. 1. H. p. 173, 
 sq. In this spirit Le Clerc (de I. H. § 6) speaks of tlie " inopia," the want of perspicuity 
 and elegance of the language — all very uncritical and causeless. From a quite different 
 point of view Sohultens treated of the inopin of the language (de defectibus, 1. Heb. p. 
 8, sq.), viz., in reference to the extent of its mouamenis and the dialects. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 137 
 
 the subsequent literature, partly on account of the stationariness 
 ol the people, on whom there was no outward influence operating 
 to induce them to make any change of their ancient idiom. But, 
 on the other hand, there was no less undeniably a development of 
 the language, to verify which indeed a very strict grammatico-his- 
 torical investigation is required, but by this the peculiarity of the 
 Pentateuch and its difference from the other books, may be clearly 
 discerned. Comp. Ewald, Gr. d. Heb. Spr. in vollstiind. Kiirze, 
 s. 3. [Translated by Nicholson, p. 4.] 
 
 2. The Hebrew is a language which, with the richest materials for 
 full cultivation, remained nevertheless in a partially undeveloped 
 state — aremark which is applicableas much to the grammatical struc- 
 ture and diction as to the style as a whole. The Arabic shows, as 
 an allied dialect, very plainly how from such germs as are found in 
 the Hebrew, the most diversified perfection may be reached by 
 more extensive cultivation. But it is altogether characteristic of 
 the Hebrew, that it did not reach that perfection which in various 
 derivations seems within sight. For («) the tendency of its literature 
 was exclusively religious, it was appropriated to the service of a 
 lofty theocratic object ; and hence it was necessarily confined 
 within a definite circle of ideas and modes of expression, (b) 
 That which is a general characteristic of the Oriental spirit, where 
 it has not degenerated under an influence foreign to its essence, 
 viz., the subordination of the form to the essence, shows itself in 
 an especial degree in the Hebrew language and literature. The 
 fulness of the thought here entirely lords it over the form, and the 
 latter, though in different ways, according to the particular ob- 
 jects, passes more or less into the background, so that, on the 
 whole, its cultivation appears something unessential and less to be 
 regarded. 
 
 3. As respects Grammar, when we consider the dialects, we 
 must assign to the Hebrew, as compared with the Aramaic, a cha- 
 racter of greater purity,, as the latter presents the genius of the 
 original Semitic language in a more degenerate and corrupt state 
 — as compared with the Arabic, we must assign to it a want of 
 cultivation, as the latter is the richer in vowels, the more melli- 
 fluous, and the more developed dialect. In respect of both we 
 must vindicate for the Hebrew the praise of a language which has 
 
 abode failhi'ully by its original and proper essence. A somewhat 
 
 •1 
 
138 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 coDjprehensive example may make this relation more closely ap- 
 parent. From the hiliterae^ which exist in few and almost entirely 
 obsolete forms, the triliterae develope themselves with the greatest 
 regularity. This, the internal harmony of the language, is accom- 
 phshed by the exchange of the bilitera for a strong letter, generally 
 aflfecting the sense, completing the notion of the word, and adapted 
 to it (as the dentals 'j, ^, c, "i^, or their softer associates, the D 
 and T sounds) ; or for a weak letter, serving to promote the 
 euphonic symmetrical formation of the root, (as the sounds ^ 
 and 1, the gutteral letters.) Especially with the latter does the 
 original character of the Hebrew language appear, inasmuch as 
 these weak letters are in Hebrew kept distinct, whereas in Ara- 
 maic the corruption of the language bespeaks itself in their being 
 confounded.^ So in the Syr. the throughout complete interming- 
 ling of the forms "jq, ^q, and *iq, so that not only are the former 
 derived from the latter (the immediate tendency to which in the 
 Hebrew is apparent, Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. -150), but also the latter 
 from the former, which is much less natural (Hoffmann, Gram. 
 Syr. p 211); on the contrary the Hebrew distinguishes even the 
 meaning of the stems iq and iq, as -^^i and -^^2' comp. Vater, 
 Hebr. Gr. s. 343. So the stems ^q and "^q are in Syriac much 
 more confounded than in Hebrew (Ewald, s. 394) ; the verbs f^^ 
 and ^'^ have passed into the one form, >^^, &c. The develop- 
 ment of the verbal stem is expressed with peculiar delicacy in the 
 modification of the notion through the so-called conjugation -sys- 
 tem, and here we find in Hebrew the original rational relation of 
 these forms delineated in outline with great clearness. The m- 
 ternal modification of the conception (as it is transitive or in- 
 transitive, active or passive), is marked by an internal vowel- 
 change; the outward modification by a change of consonants, 
 either as a new conception superadded, the leflexive, Niphal 
 (Hithpael) and causal, Hiphil, or as an enhancing of the stem- 
 conception through an augmentation of the radicals belonging 
 
 1 Comi). Geseuius, Lebrgeb. s, 183, ff., 452, ff. Hupfeld, de emendanda lexico- 
 graphiae semiticae ratione (Marb. 1827, 4to), p. 12, sq. Stier, Neugeordn. Lebrgeb. I. s. 
 141, 182, if. 
 
 ^ Hence tbe observation (crudely, indeed, and empirically expressed) tbat tbe Ara- 
 maic numbers fewer verba irregularia tban tbe Hebrew (Gesenius, Lebrg s. 153), 
 wliicb, bowever, must be regarded as anytbing bnt a mark of original simplicit;/. 
 
ORIGIXAL LANGUAGES OF THF. OLD TESTAMENT. 139 
 
 thereto, Piel. All these outlines are in the Aramaic branch of the 
 language almost entirely obliterated. In direct opposition to the 
 nature of the idiom the formation of the Passive is accomplished 
 by new forms added externally (the syllable — Z(), so that in them 
 
 there is no distinction in point of form between the reflex and the 
 passive signification, similar to the relation of the Greek middle 
 and passive voices (Agrell. Lumina Syr. § G.) To the very same 
 result we are led by the comparison of the Hebrew and Aramaic 
 augmentative forms. These, proceeding on the principle of the 
 speech-stem's developing itself by itself, appear quite regular in the 
 Piel-form, and here are unfolded progressively further, according as 
 the sense requires more or less of augmentation (the so-called j?->/^^- 
 rilitera)} whence in Hebrew the augmentative formations beyond 
 the Piel are very rare, and are used only as particular occasions 
 demand (Ewald, s. 241, fF.) On the contrary, in the Aramaic are 
 found such new augmentative forms in a much greater number than 
 in the Hebrew, and without this exacter conception (Agrell. Otiola 
 Syr. p. 34, sq.) Even the basis of this form is also corrupted, 
 inasmuch as in place of the rediqdication of a stem- conso- 
 nant (Piel) there is a lengthened pronunciation (Pael.) In this 
 way the further it advanced the more the Aramaic departed from 
 the original, since it counterbalanced the elongation by new letters 
 appended to the stem, which continually diverge more and more 
 from the simple vowel-lengthening with which it began, whence 
 
 -J 7 7 7 -n 7 
 
 arise the forms with "^ and i (^-4o^> tr30£D, ^^-^l)), those with 
 liquids (with n : Kantala occurs only in Arab, and Ethiopic, 
 Hupfeld, Exercitt Ethiop. p. 26), those with -, (^^i ^li), 
 
 •K 7 
 
 and those with ^ (^oLd^, &c. Hoffmann, Gr. Syr. p. 186. The 
 - tendency to this is found in Hebrew only in nouns (which tend 
 more to composition than verbs), and here only for the most part 
 in the later usage of the language. 
 
 4. As respects the Diction, we must especially note the etymo- 
 logical character of the Hebrew idiom. Etymology has primarily 
 Q. phonetic basis ; the conception adhering to the sounds and un- 
 
 1 The part of Ewald's Grammar wliioh treats of this is not quite free from error, inas- 
 
 iimch as the formation of tlie plurilitera as represented by liim is too much severed from 
 
 these augmentative forms, s. 520, ff. Some very admirable remarks which make tliis 
 
 connection clear are found in Hupfeld Exercitt. Aethiop., p. 24, sq. 
 
 3 
 
140 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 folding itself in them in manifold ways. This is especially seen in 
 the Hebrew on account of the regular triliieral formation which is 
 found here; the fundamental conception of the word adheres to 
 the two fundamental sounds of the stem, which contain and express 
 the conception onomatopoietically. A multitude of such syllables 
 may be referred to which, though very variously formed, may be 
 reduced to a common onomatopoietic ground-conception, and hence 
 are of great importance for the combination of apparently diflTereut 
 words. Thus the syllables f-^-j, ^■^, ^q, -)Q, &c.^ Some have 
 gone so far as to determine these sounds themselves according to 
 the meaning of the individual sound, the letter (comp. Bcittcher, 
 Proben Alt. Test, licher Schrifterklarung, Vorr. s. XIIL, ff.) ; but 
 in this case use has been made of a refined and perilous subtlety, 
 which even in point of principle does not appear to be correct. 
 For the word-aad stem -conception can be minted only by the 
 combining of sounds, which in its greatest simplicity consists 
 of the coming together of two sounds. It is otherwise with the 
 expressions for the relation of several conceptions to each other, as 
 in the case of the ground-particles (the copula "^ and what were 
 originally prepositions 2,> ^ and ^) where the simple combining 
 sound suffices.'- The original character of the language is espe- 
 cially indicated in the still very evident connections in which that 
 outwardly phonetic word -formation stands with the concrete (or 
 sensible) ground-meaning of the word." In the Hebrew the ori- 
 ginal has here been least corrupted by variety of formations, or 
 by transition to a more abstract character of language. Especially 
 since Schultens' time attention has been directed to this feature of 
 the Hebrew language, in which the immediate perception is through- 
 out predominant, and hence the attempt has proceeded to reduce 
 the whole treasures of the language to a very few simple radical 
 conceptions. Comp. Hupfeld De emend. Lex. Sem. rat. p. 7: 
 Incredibilis exploranti cuique se oflFert radicum penuria, ex qua 
 haec significationum silva excrevit, nee quicquam vel admirabilius 
 
 1 Comp. Gesenius, Lelirg. s. 183, ff. Vorrede z W.B. 3te Aufl. s. L. 
 
 ~ It is cenainly an error in the later Grammarians (as Gesenius, Winer, Ewald) to 
 treat these prepositions as abbreviations of stem-forms ; this is applicable only in the 
 case of the derived later particles (whose use therefore is also much more comprehen- 
 sive) but not in the case of the simplest elements of the language. 
 
 3 See on this what Grimm says, Deutsche Gram. II. 84, fF. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 141 
 
 est vel frnctuosius atque jucundius cognitu quara intiospicere lin- 
 guarum officinara et banc intueri oeconomiae simj)licitatem et 
 constantiam, qua usa est ad efForraandam ex tarn teuiii penu innu- 
 merabilen.1 notionura varietatem. 
 
 II. The frequently mooted question as to the richiiefis of the 
 language cannot be determined by an a priori and altogether out- 
 ward reduction of a combination of letters to iriliterae, and it is 
 impossible from this to decide upon the loss which we have sus- 
 tained in reference to the Hebrew from the small number of 
 sources.^ Much that formerly belonged thereto, is indeed still 
 retained in the proper names, the etymology of which, it is true, is 
 often puzzling, but with the help of the Dialects," may in part be 
 successfully illustrated. Much also remains in the ancient Tal- 
 mudic writings (the Mishnah), all the linguistic treasures of which 
 certainly cannot be ascribed to borrowing from other dialects (the 
 Aramaic for instance) or to the new formations, but must in part be 
 viewed as remains of old Hebrew words preserved by tradition. 
 Such word-stems are, e. gr., -^^^ ^sed of manliness (on this the 
 dialects throw no light) ; D73.' ^'^ '^^^' ^^ence to defile ; nn"T' ^^ ^® 
 dim, dark ; "X^X^, to laugh ; "^^H' ^^ ^^i^^' ^^- Comp. Hartmann 
 Thes. Ling. Heb. e. Mishnah augend., p. II., p. 49, sq. (voces quae 
 in V. T. desiderantur.) 
 
 The copiousness of the Hebrew, and along with that a nicety 
 which has not been sufficiently considered, is especially seen in the 
 use of the so-called synomjmes, a point to which the earher writers 
 have also called attention. Thus Carpzov remarks (Crit. Sac. 
 V. T., p. 201), that the language possesses eighteen words for the 
 conception to break, and adds, " paritcr observarunt viri docti, 
 tenehras octo diversis nominibus, qiiaerendi actum decem verbis 
 
 1 As Scliulteus does; see on this Gesenius Gesch., s. 47. 
 
 2 Thus the names 'J~fL, n:>i^a indicate a root once existing in Heb. y^a, Arab. 
 
 _ J ^^ rh'J, then tropically to distinguish one's self, to conquer ; hence ^^ j^ and 
 Cv/ • ^^ 7 • 
 
 s 
 
 US.] ^ excellentia, praeslantia {less naturally Gesenius, cioimm,munus from the 5t)i 
 
 conj. of the stem-word, Thes., p. 244.)— DhJ in place of the form Dha which occurs 
 
 also in Arabic in place of the usual h'n^—'^')'Si. from T^a the ^gj,^^^ to be bold, 
 venturesome, -y>MS^' audax, magnanimus, &c. Gomp. Gesenius Gesch., s. 49. 
 
142 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 exprimi, porro moriendi actum iKJvem, conjidentiam in Deum 
 quatuordecim, remissionem peccatormn novem, ohservantiam legis 
 viginti quiuque phrasibus Hebraeis in Scriptura exponi. Unde 
 conjecturam capere licet, quam late quondam patuerit, quanlisqu© 
 abundant divitiis, cum in flora ilia hominumque adhuc esset ore. 
 Comp. also Hartmann Ling. Einl. § 235. Now this is not to be 
 explained by the Parallehsm of the members in Poetry which often 
 rendered necessary various expressions of the same thought (Gese- 
 nius Gesch, s. 48) ; but its proper reason is found in that depth of 
 the language, in virtue of which, it is capable of expressing a con- 
 ception according to its most varied modifications. In the Lexi- 
 cons, however, by far too large a number of synonymous concep- 
 tions is established, since the Hebrew in this department discrimi- 
 nates with much nicety, and here above all renders criticism need- 
 ful. So in respect of the words which denote darkness it may be 
 remarked that Tnz^n '^ the general expression, opposed to "^"iJ^, Is. 
 Iviii. 10, absence of light ; (so according to the etymology — here 
 Schultens errs, Job., p. 45, sq. — "Titian = 1]tl?n co'^'^'cere lucem, 
 Ez. XXX. 18) ; ^^^ (and riT'^^) ^^ '^^^ more special and hence the 
 stronger word, Night-darkness (according to the Etymology, pro- 
 perly of tli« setting suu, 7^^ being allied to 7?^^) opposed to 
 • Q'^in!!^ Is. Iviii. 10, and hence also in elevated discourse it is 
 used with^)^^, Exod. x. 22; Joel ii. 2 ; Zeph. i. 15; ntO^V 
 
 properly the thick darkness (iiXi densus fuit.) Mere poetical 
 descriptions of darkness are the words n^'^^p find nip7!^. 
 Gesenius gives darkness as the meaning also of ^^^, but in this he 
 errs, for it means the gloaming, the evening twilight; nor have 
 j-jQiX^ and ?|^^72 ^^^^^ meaning, and as little does the root n*)^ sig- 
 
 
 nify to he dark, and the Syr. .21L to veil, as Gesenius supposes, 
 
 probably from a misunderstanding of Heb. i. 12 in the Peschito. 
 Comp. Michaehs, Supplement. 5, p. 18G6, sq.^ 
 
 1 Here we may take occasion to adduce several Synonymes which have either been 
 overlooked or wrongly construed. a"ins and rhi.'i3 for both of which the Lexicons give 
 only spica, whereas the former denotes the ear when upon the stalk, the latter the ripened 
 ear fit to be reaped or already reaped; nais is the arable land, nib the free open field 
 (see Creduer on Joel, p. 121, ff.) ; loia denotes the internal sense of shame, ^sn the in- 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. " 143 
 
 A class of words altogether peculiar to Hebrew consists of those 
 which relate to the theocratic relations of the nation, wlflch belong 
 to the strictly religious department, and mark theocratic peculiari- 
 ties just as in the New Testament diction we must recognize Chris- 
 tian peculiarities.^ Such expressions are, for instance, pj'l'iil' ]l?2i^' 
 the revealed truth (see my Comment, on Daniel, s. 280), the divine 
 name, nlrT^' ^'^^ ^^^ combinations with it, such as i "^ \2J"^'^, tZ?p2L' 
 '^"'^ DV ' further, the different expressions for sin, and to commit 
 sin, to he sinhurdened (^^n- HIV' l^tL^I' T^7:2' ^^^ ^^1 Comm. 
 on Dan. s. 302), or {ox prai/er (nTQH' prayer in general, D^^^^nn' 
 a prayer for grace, as well for the obtaining of something desired 
 as for the averting of something feared, deprecatio), the psycholo- 
 gical tetms n^"^' ^T'Di' n?2tl73 (^"^^ Olshausen de Trichotonna na- 
 
 dex of this on tbe couiiteDauce, blushing (Ps. xxxiv. 6, lieuce the collocation with ri527, the 
 white moon shall blush. Is. xxiv. 23, with pja''? the white mountain shall blush, Is. xxxiii. 
 9), 0^33 to cover oneself with disgrace, to be disgraced, outwardly to endure all the con- 
 sequences of disgrace ; pis and t33ta)3 denote, the former personal, the latter judicial 
 rectitude (comp. Hengsteuherg, Christol. III., s. 554, less correctly the earlier writers, 
 as for instance, Schultens, Job., p. 215) ; 05*1 anger boiling up but speedily appeased, 
 qs anger that lasts and consumes (see my Comment, on Daniel, s. 300) ; al3 to begin 
 
 to sleep, to fall asleep (so also in the Syr. ^^J, comp. Asseniani Bibl. Or I., p. 3(3, allied 
 to yi3 to nod, to fall into a wavering movement of the body, incorrectly the Lexicons to 
 slumber, to sleep lightly), rai proper word for to sleep. The words ni-ijs and nin^ 
 yr\^ are originally to be distinguished, so that the former denotes the gifts which nn 
 inferior brings to his superior (hence especially of offerings, Credner on Joel, s. 118), 
 the latter those which a superior may give to his inferior, or equals to each other 
 (Faber, Beobacht. iib. d. Orient, II. 11, S.) ; but th;s distinction is not always strictly 
 observed ; py; action in its begijiuiug to undertake, nbs action verging to its perfor- 
 mance, see the instructive passage Is. xli. 4 (in Lat ugere, facere, gerere, Herzog ad 
 Caes. de B. Gall. iii. 27. Frotscher ad Quinctil. lib. X., p. 8 ) ; "vv and nijj have already 
 beenrighth discriminated by Schultens, " illius qualecunque imperium, hujus in totum 
 populum potestas est" (Job. p. 807), &c. Worthy of notice also is the change of 
 meaning that is often produced by a very slight change of sound, as e. gr., yj.'n to hew 
 stones, at3M to hew wood (ste Gesenius WB. s. voc), tii^S to decay (of trees), yr3 to 
 decay (of buildings) ; '^Tii to give, run to give the hire of fornication (Heugstenb. 1. c. 
 s. 89),&;-. 
 
 1 Comp. Winer, Gr. d. N. T. s. 3.5, 3te Ausg., where amongst other things the author 
 says, '■ to seek to explain such expressions of the Christian-apostolic terminology from 
 the Greek authors (comp. Krebs, Observ. praef. p. 4) is in the highest degree out of 
 place." Equally so is it to seek to explain peculiar Hebrew conceptions from heathen 
 sources, as e. (/r. sia3 compared with the Greek 7r/oo(^?iT»js (see in opposition to this 
 Banmgarten-Crusius, Bibl. Theol. s. 40), or the wyz'O ■'n"'?S with the ovpavov Kparoi of 
 the Greeks (ibid. s. 166), &c. 
 
144 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 lurae humanae, in his Opuscula), &c. The great copiousness and 
 variety of the language in this respect shows how much it was pe- 
 netrated by the profoundest reUgious life (which is what the old 
 theoli:>gians commonly understood by the sanctilas liufj. Heh.) — 
 Worthy of notice in this respect is the relation of the Hebrew to 
 its heathen neighbours, in as far as the borrowing of religion from 
 the idolaters led to a practical adoption of their modes of speech. 
 Hence it is interesting to observe how, by the Hebrew theocratic 
 writers, all the expressions used by the Armaeans in reference to 
 objects of divine worship are used of the idolatrous worship, as, 
 
 e. gr. ^t-O, to prophesy, QDp, to soothsay (of false proj)hets), 
 comp. Eosenmuller on Deut. xviii. 10, Hitzig on Is. s. 33 ; simi- 
 larly ^"i^, which in Aramaic certainly signifies expiatio, at least 
 such was the meaning of nilit^jl among the Phoenicians (Ha- 
 macker, Misceil. Phoenic. p. 29), among the Hebrews it is used 
 
 7 
 
 in the sense of necromancy, see Gesenius, Thes. s. v. ; 2ijtD, to 
 liray, to sacrifice, ft^^, to practise sorcery (common meaning, to 
 unveil, to reveal mysteries, Hartmann, Linguist. Einl. s. 292 ; the 
 ancient priestly prophetic mode of teaching, Creuzer, Symbolik. T. 
 
 11, IF.) ; i^K'^ (and likewise the Arab. Js^^va^), to adore, to pros- 
 trate oneself, "[y^, used only of idol- worship (of theocratic 
 niHJ^tl^n) ' Si^lH' ^''^ Aramaic name of God, used by the Hebrews 
 only of the relations of civil life, never of the true God, of ihe 
 latter only ^''I'-f^, which with the Aramaeans was more a conventional 
 
 term •} pLooiD, a priest, X^'y^^, of the idol-priests ; ntljlp' t2)"Ip' 
 a saint, one consecrated to God with the Armaeans,' but with the 
 Hebrews a gallant, a whoremonger. From these specimens we may 
 conclude that a mode of speech was embraced by the idolatrous 
 Hebrews such as suited their inclinations, but which persons de- 
 voted to the true God sought to abolish, and to place in its true 
 
 1 See Bellermann ou the passage of the Poenulus II. 15, whence Miinter (Eelig. der 
 Kathaijer, s. 5) erroneously concluded that pis is a name of God, How much the later 
 Syrians regarded the word as the proper Jewish name for God, is evident from Asse- 
 manni, Bibl. Orient I. 371. 
 
 2 The designations of the Hierodouloi among the Hellenes are constantly : ts/oai ■yu- 
 vaiKii, avbpf.i lepoi, irdpdti/oi Upal. Comp. e.^fr. Herod. |II. .56, VI. '97; Pausan. TI. 
 7, 6, VIII. 36, 2. Hierodoulos was not by any means a word in living use among the 
 people, see Kreuser der Hellenen Priesterstaat, s. 81, u. 199. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 145 
 
 light before the people (see my remarks iu Tholuck's Anzeiger, 1831, 
 No. 17, s. 141.) 
 
 § 28. CONTINUATION. ADOPTION OE FOREIGN WORDS INTO THE 
 
 HEBREW. 
 
 Here we have first to remark that we must carefully distinguish 
 between what is the common property of the languages, the re- 
 mains of an earlier unity among tongues now distinct (such as 
 agreement, iu the matter of the Pronouns, words like i^, with the 
 Indo-Germauic tongue-stems), and what actually through historical 
 relations occasioned to one people supremacy over the other,^ so 
 that we may not arbitrarily conclude from the former upon a later 
 historical connection.- It is with the latter source of wealth to 
 the language that we have here to do ; the former belongs to tlie 
 grammarian. 
 
 1. The earliest country with which the Hebrews came into his- 
 torical intercourse, and which consequently could exercise and 
 must have exercised influence on their language, is Egypt. The 
 Pentateuch especially is rich in expressions which are due to the 
 residence of the Hebrews in that land, as ^n^' ^"^^d of the Nile ; 
 
 T 
 
 •^'^^"1, Nile-Stream ; fTi^nS,' Nile-horse ; ^\^, Byssus ; ji;]?]^ 
 ni^lSl- roS' ^^^ ^^^^' Egyptian proper names. Since also in later 
 times, from the time of Solomon, traffic of various kinds was car- 
 ried on with Egypt (Winer, Reallex, I. 39, fi".), many words 
 were imported into the Hebrew then from this source, as ftf^ (Hos. 
 ix. 6), or rtj (Is. xix. 13), Memphis; j^^py (Is. xxx. 4) ; but 
 these are only proper names, as was natural, seeing the later He- 
 brews did not come into such intimate relations with Egypt as the 
 earlier.* Here the following things are to be observed. A. The 
 
 1 [I suppose the author lueaus to say, " what actually came into the language of the 
 one people through influBiice obtaiued over them by the other," but his words are to me 
 obscure.— Tr.] 
 
 2 As Ernesti does, in reference the Greek (Opusc. Philol. et Crit. p. 178), or the Car- 
 melite Maria Ogerius in reference to the Latin, De Gr. et Lat. linguae cum liebrHica affi- 
 nitute libellus. Veuet. 17(34, see Bahr. Gesch. der Eom. Liter. § 1. 
 
 ^ Doubtful are such words as nan (comp.on this Creuzer, Comment. Herod, p. 94),r]'^"i; 
 (which also admits of a Heb. etymology), comp. Hitzig on Is. s. 62. 
 * Henctf appears the error of recent critics (iis e. gr. Hartmann lib. d. Pfutateuch s. 
 K 
 
146 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Egyptian words suffer an accotnm Delation to the Hebrew idiom, 
 which certainly does not stand in any relation of affinity with the 
 Egyptian, in order to be brought near to it and to become more 
 significant in it; comp. Qpf, the native name of Egypt, but to 
 which the Hebrews attached the meaning of Land of the South 
 (see Gesenius s. v.), Q33, Exod. x. IG (LXX. aKvl(f)6<i, Ps. cv. 81), 
 still more hebraised, £3135. comp. Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. 251, who, 
 however, would needlessly read Q^^)' since the Pentateuch has 
 elsewhere the termination q — . B. For the Egyptian words of 
 the Pentateuch others are substituted in later books ; thus instead 
 of tiJU7' -^SyP*- Shensh (constantly in the Pentateuch), in the later 
 books we have equally constantly V^^, Gesen. Thes. p. 190. C. 
 Sometimes a foreign Aramaic word appears in the place of the 
 Egyptian one, in order that, from being more familiar as a relative, it 
 might be more intelligible, and yet at the same time indicate the 
 foreign character of the customs and the expression ; thus tO^'jj^^ for 
 ■^^, Gen. xlii. 6 J'tt"^^^*^, Gen. xli. 43, where the Aramaic form is un- 
 mistakeable. (See Schumann on this passage.) Nevertheless we 
 have a Hebrew word "^"^^jn ^^^ '-^^ Lotus (Num. xi. 5 ; see 
 Koester, Erlauterungen, s. 148, flf.), □to">n' Gen. xli. 24; Ex. 
 vii. 11. 
 
 2. Of later origin are the Persian words which occur in the Old 
 Testament. None such are found in the Pentateuch. For what 
 Hamacker has recently sought to drag in as such (Miscell. Phoenic. 
 p. 199), viz., the proper name 'TT2"15 Num. xxxiv. 25 (Pharnaces), 
 
 is capable of being derived much better from the root "n^Q, t^JLs, 
 contendere, currere. As little is the difficult word ]-(Tf Deut. xxxiii. 
 
 T 
 
 2, Persian, and there belongs to it a very different condition from 
 what is commonly assumed.^ For that the word is old Hebrew is 
 proved, 1, from the proper name \'psl, which is undoubtedly con- 
 nected with it, and which occurs in the Pentateuch, comp. Simonis 
 Onoraasticon, j5. 325 ; 2. from the fact that the Persian word it- 
 
 654). in placing the use of Egyptian words in the Pentateuch on tlie same footing with 
 those in other books, by wliich means the pectiliarilij of the Pentateuch is misappre- 
 hended ; see also what follows, 
 
 1 The word must belong to the Persian age, and thus "becomes the most decisive 
 proof of the very late origin of this chapter" Hartmanu, 1. c. s. 66G. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 147 
 
 self is ib (Pehlvi, Dadha), and consequently has no strict ac- 
 cordance with the form f^^, where the p^ rather indicates a Hebrew 
 ending. But if the commonly attempted etymology of the word 
 be relinquished as untenable (see Bottcher, Proben Alttestam. 
 Schrifterkl. s. 3), there is another exactly conformable to the He- 
 brew, which, however, seems to have hitherto been overlooked ; 
 from the stem *^^, '^r^ — p^y^ (like j-|"^'^), contr. p^^ (IJkej^^^ into 
 PO), in the altogether suitable meaning of Justice, Law. Cer- 
 tainly the resumption of the form in later books is only explain- 
 able from the influence of Parsism ; but even in this case this new 
 usage of the language very fitly, at the same time, coheres with an 
 older, and one derived from other sources. Still less weight can 
 be laid on other words, such as ^^i^"^^} Exod. xxv. 4, as evi- 
 dence of a later usage, for this word undoubtedly proceeds from 
 the Phoenician, as also the invariable use of JH^^ri along with it 
 in the Pentateuch proves (the latter with an Aramaised form in 
 place of Ji7ntlJ' ^^^^Y ^'^ ^^^^ \Qier: books the form invariably 
 occurring, 'rii^'^i^, concurs exactly with the Persic, and owes to 
 Persian influence its origin, and in this way may be easily ex- 
 plained the otherwise very anomalous exchange of ^ for \ Even 
 in the time of Solomon no certain traces of the influence of the 
 Persic are to be found; the only word DT^S' Cant. iv. 13, is 
 hardly old Persic (see Ewald on Cant. s. 21), and admits even of 
 a Semitic etymology (from n**r^' ^'^ extend), Ewald, 1. c. s. 119 ; 
 comp. also the forms ^**i'^' ^^ji, "j"i"T^"i?3, Judg. iii. 22. Ewald, 
 Krit. Gr. s. 519. It is only in the later books, when the Baby- 
 lonians and the Chaldee spoken by them, and which was allied 
 to the Persic, exercised an influence on the Jews, and in the 
 books written during the Persian dominion itself (Ezekiel, Daniel, 
 Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Chronicles,) that Parsisms are found in 
 any remarkable manner. These occur in several expressions (see 
 under) ; the earliest trace of them is found in the word •^D?2t5' 
 Nah. iii. 17 ; so that in this respect tlie later Hebrew resembled 
 the Greek, of which Athenaeus says (Deipnos HI. 34) : irapa 
 roi^ ap')(aLOt<i 7roir]rai<; kclL crvjypacfieua-i roi'i a<^oZpa eWrjvi^ovaiv 
 ear IV evpelv koI UepOLKa ovofMara Kei/jueva 8ia rrjv tt}? ')(^pricreo}^ 
 
 K 2 
 
]iH HISTOKV OF THE 
 
 o-vvrjdeiav. Somctliing here appears adapted to the Hebrew or 
 Aramaic idiom, as 'p^?| and its cognates, which is neither exclusively 
 Persic (see Lorshach, Arch. II. s. 273), nor purely Semitic (see 
 Gesenius, thes. p. 296), but originally proceeded from the properly 
 Persic terminus (pecuniam regiam, gazam Persae vocant. Curt. 
 III. 13, 5), and was then combined with the Aramaic stem "j^?^ = c?32' 
 to which the forms -^^f^ and 'j'^-^^'l^ Y.^.x^ i. 8, Dan. iii. 2, 3, 
 especially lead. 
 
 3. The question as to the presence of Greek words in the 
 Hebrew has been variously answered. The connection of the inha- 
 bitants of Hither Asia with ancient Greece, even in the earliest 
 times, is evident, and it sufficiently accounts for the number of 
 Semitic words in Greek (see under.) But there arises here the 
 much more difficult question, whether there was any reaction of the 
 Greek language on the Hebrew ; and in this respect there have 
 been some who would reduce the words ^y^"^ and f'^S") which 
 occur in the Pentateuch to this source {iraiXKa^, TraWaKt^, \afnrd<;), 
 as they do not appear to admit of any Semitic origin (J. D. 
 Michaehs, Einl. in d. A. T. I. s. 166.) But this latter assertion, 
 which is of essential importance here, is undoubtedly a mistake. 
 
 For I2)y^^, a concubine, comes clearly from ^^Q, irruere, invadere, 
 
 t - ' 
 certainly also to lie with, like the closely- allied Arabic \^^ which, 
 
 according to Freytag signifies, 1, de improviso irruit in al. ; 2, 
 coivit, with which also accords the strengthened form ,|i,^i, valde 
 turpis fuit, obscoeno sermone usus est (Freytag, p. 319.) (On 
 the insertion of the ^ see Gesenius Lehrg. s. 863.) In the 
 word 1*157 there occurs undoubtedly an amalgamation of syno- 
 nymous words (see Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. 519), comp. in Arab, 
 j^ splenduit, and -^ the name (especially of lightning), and the 
 Greek word Xd/xTrco is only derived, just as arifxaivetv stands con- 
 nected with \i2D- — ^f ^^^^ 'i'^^ °^ Solomon the word 'j'^'^ig^, Eccl. 
 [Cant.] iii. 9, has been adduced as derived from the Greek, comp. 
 (f)opeiov, a sedan or litter (comp. 2 Mace. iii. 27, ix. 8.) So re- 
 cently Hartmann, Thes. Ling. Heb. eMishna augend. I. 41 ; Stud, 
 und. Krit. 1830, H. 3, s. 657, ffi But the meaning thus attached 
 to the word does not suit the connection of the passage (see 
 Dopke, Hohelied, s. 117), this requires bridal- bed or marriaye- 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 149 
 
 hed, and this meaning leads us to n'^^- ^^ he fruitful, as the pro- 
 per etymon (Dopke, s. 123.)^ In later books about the period of 
 the captivity, such as Ecclesiastes, some have asserted the existence 
 of Grecisras (Zirkel, Untersuchungen, lib. d. Pred. s. 46, ff'.), to 
 which also Eichhorn inclines (Einl. III. §> 658, ed. 1.) But this 
 pretence is utterly groundless, and has been sufficiently confuted.? 
 In the book of Daniel, Grecisms have also been discovered, which, 
 however, cannot be proved to be such (comp. my Comment, s 20, 
 88, 472, &c.) ; only the names of certain musical instruments which 
 are mentioned chap. iii. are by recent enquirers held to be of Greek 
 origin, but this also is subject to the gravest doubt, and it is pos- 
 sible to adduce for the words in question very good etymologies 
 from the Semitic (see my Comment, s. 105, fF.) Though it may 
 be admitted that by means of the relations which, antecedent to the 
 Persian era, subsisted between Greece and Hither Asia, Greek words 
 were naturalised there (see my Comment, s. 102, ff. Comp. Eosen- 
 milller scholia in Dan. p. 14), it cannot be denied that in a lin- 
 guistic aspect the influence of the East upon Greece was felt, 
 rather than the converse ; and in point of fact we must, for the 
 reasons assigned, deny the existence of Greek words in any of the 
 Hebrew documents now extant." 
 
 § 29. POETICAL AND PROSAIC STYLE. 
 
 Characteristic of the spirit of Hebraism is the form of Poetry pe- 
 cuhar to it. Since in it the idea always lords it over the form, so 
 the latter is throughout more simple and unconstrainedly conformed 
 to the idea than in newer and more cultivated tongues. The He- 
 brew contents itself with only such a disposition to poetical form 
 as is required immediately by the character of the poetry. It knows 
 only a rythmical prose, the regular combination of longer or shorter 
 sections (strophes and parallel members of verses) into one whole. 
 
 1 [Geseiiius derives it flroru nis, to bear or carry (as ciirrus from currendo, cpopnov 
 from (jieptt), &c.) ; Ewald from Tt-^-i, finder e, secure, and renders it a work well elaborated, 
 a piece of elegant furniture. Gesenius seems alone riglit here. — Te.J 
 
 2 Comp. Eichborn's Bibl. der Bibl. Liter. IV. s. 904, ff. Sclimidt, Salomo's Pred. 
 Excurs. 3, s. 283, ff. Nacbtigall, Kobeletb, s. 51, ff., &c. 
 
 3 On the enriching of the Heb. from the allied dialects, the Aramaic and Arabic, see 
 Milder. 
 
loO HISTORY OF THE 
 
 This regularity of form, consoquently, is observed more or less ex- 
 actly according to the peculiar character of the Poet or the object 
 with which he wrote ; hence in poems chiefly designed for liturgical 
 purposes (as the Psalms), the poetical form is more carefully pre- 
 served than for instance with the Prophets, which consequently, as 
 respects the rhythmus, stand in some sort between poetry and prose. 
 
 But, though the Hebrew poetry knows no metres in the artificial 
 sense of other languages, it has nevertheless a diction peculiar to it 
 which all the more easily receives that peculiarity, since the other for- 
 mal cultivation is wanting. " Not only partially is the language 
 altered by the poetry, but it receives quite another meaning than in 
 common use." (Solger, Erwin II. 77.) Hence the style of Hebrew 
 poetry is distinguished in a very marked manner from that of prose, 
 and the one, moreover, often floats into the other. To this subject 
 belong especially the following : — 
 
 1. In a lexical respect there are certain peculiar rarer expres- 
 sions in place of the ordinary to be observed. Thus, "^j^i^i ^'^^" 
 W' ItJ'liSl for D7«. m« for ^y^, -f]-)^^ for fc^^;;!, ^2_ for ^, 
 
 •in:i for t}^^^ rw for Tnrj' ^IV] for ni^> rh^ for -\yi, rrxi 
 
 for y\\ n^n^ for T|^"i, rT\V for 'W^ l-Jp for TV^thl^: Ti^^D for 
 D''t2}> *^QU? for nD"^' ^^- ^'^ these words are also extant in Ara- 
 maic, but there they are ordinary words (because there the Hebrew 
 is the unusual) ; and they are used partly for the sake of the paral- 
 lelism, where the synonymes of the language itself did not suffice, so 
 that it was needful to borrow what was wanting from the dialects, as 
 e. gr, Ps. Ixxxi. 4, pfp^ (al. ^D^)' ^^^^Q full- mo on, is used with re- 
 ference to the preceding parallel ^"^n, the new- moon, because for 
 the former there is no proper Hebrew word (comp. Hirzel de Chal- 
 daismi Bibl. orig. et auctor. crit. p. 13.) In general, however, it 
 was for the sake of a more vigorous expression which was furnished 
 by the foreign element, that it was used ; the force of the declara- 
 tion lay therein. It was exactly the same with the Greek poets, as 
 Aristotle has already observed in his Poetic, c. 22 : aefivr) he koI 
 e^aWdrTovcraTb thi(OTiKov (soil. Xeft?), rj rot? ^eviKol^ KexPV~ 
 /xevT}' ^evtKOP Se Xejco <y\wrrav (dialect) koI fiera^opav kuI 
 eireKTaaiv koi irav to irapa to Kvpiov. Hence also e. gr. the tragic 
 poets intermingle with the Attic dialect many Dorisms, chiefly for 
 the reasons assigned (comp. Matthiae, Gr. Gr. I. s. 12.) — The ad- 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 151 
 
 jectives which, as characteristic epithets, supply the place of a defi- 
 uite substaotive, belong rather to the subject of rhetoric and the 
 poetico-oriental mode of representation. Thus "^^^t^' ^^'^ stroiiff, 
 for God ; '^'^^4<^, the strong, for bull or horse (Cant. vi. 9) ; Y^"^n' 
 the sharp (a thrashing instrument) Is. xxviii. 27, &c. In the 
 Hebrew this usage is, however, simple and natural, so that the con- 
 nection and context easily decide the meaning ;^ such ornamental 
 epithets as the Arabic is so rich in even to satiety (comp. Damis 
 in Bochart, Hieroz. II. p. 15. Rosenm., Willmet ad Antarae 
 Moall. p. 170, sq.), are not found in the Hebrew. The Poets 
 "are, except in the case of God's name, far removed from the use 
 of standing honorary epithets, or appositions in the epic style, from 
 the occasional intermingling of mere notabilities in the manner of 
 Homer or Herodotus ; as they never simply ' delectare volunt,' 
 when they do introduce anything of this sort it is always something 
 adapted to the train of ideas, either commendatory or dissuasive, 
 or in some other way interesting." (Bottcher, Proben A.T. 
 Schrifterkl. s. 179, fi.) To this belongs also the emphatic use of 
 many abstract substantives in place of concrete designations or an 
 adjective, as n?2^^' ^*''^t^h for truthful, Ps. xix. 10 ; r^lr\^ dark- 
 ness, for dark, Ps. xxxv. 6. (Comp. Aurivillius, Dissert, p. 187, 
 sq. ed. Michaehs ; Ewald, Kr. Gr. s. 624, ff.) 
 
 2, In a grammatical respect there are many instances in 
 which various objects of the Poet, or reasons on account of which 
 the poetic diction should assume such peculiarities, prevailed. Thus, 
 on the one hand, the rarer grammatical form or turn of the words 
 exerts such an influence on the meaning, that it becomes the more 
 select poetical expression, as e. gr. the singular form jq"'!")^ in 
 place of D^n 7^^' since the former obliterates the abstract concep- 
 tion (Godhead), and places the concrete, the representational in its 
 stead ; so also with many syntactical turns, as the use of the demon- 
 strative for relative, Exod. xv. 10 ; Ps. ix. 16, civ. 8, which is 
 hardly to be esteemed an Aramaism (as by Ewald, Gr. s. 650, and 
 Hirzel, 1. cit. p. 0, it is esteemed), but the demonstrative is here more 
 
 1 Hence much that has been classed under this head must be set aside as too artificial 
 and far fetched, as e. gr. nitt*isy, commonly the strong (limbs of the lion) ; but it signi- 
 fies rather strength collectively, and is only more select than PlttSS, Is. xli. 21; comp, 
 Ewald Kr. Gr. b. 327. 
 
l.')2 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 vivid and energetic, as it rescues the clause from the merely prosaic 
 connection by means of the relative ;^ so also the indefinite form of 
 expression, which often lends to the discourse a more elevated cha- 
 racter (not rightly viewed by the grammarians as merely an omis- 
 sion of the article ; Gesenius, Lehrg. s. 652). e. r/r. Ps. xxi. 2, " A 
 hing shall joy in thy stj'ength," more energetic than " ///^king,"&c. 
 — On the other hand, the external form of poetry may exercise 
 an influence on the grammatical character of the diction ; so that 
 here archaisms re- appear, e. gr. the form niH ^^^ H*^)!' ^^^ '^^^ 
 fluctuating usage of the gender (Bottcher, Proben, s. 15) ; also 
 Araraaisms, as foreign and rare, for instance the pi. in ^ — > &c., or 
 even forms of a peculiar kind constructed from the Hebrew, as the 
 elongation in ;-] — , adopted for the sake of the rhythm (as nHi^'lIll?"^' 
 (in^'^i^)' ^^® Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. 323, the suffixes in 'i?2~'i?;2S? 
 
 T T •• T 
 
 •^^1 — (comp. these with forms like "i^^, &c., see Ewald, s. 364, 
 ff".), sufiixes in *)pf>i — , ip^'^, &c., see Bottcher, s. 124. On account 
 of the frequent use of Paronomasia, especially by the Poets (see 
 Saalschutz, Form d. Hebr. Poesie, s. 125, If.), it often happens 
 that in order to secure it an unusual word or form is employed 
 (see my Comment, on Daniel, s. 356 ; Bottcher, s. 71.) Much, 
 nevertheless, that has been ranked under this head is to be traced 
 to a misunderstanding of the grammatical construction and spirit 
 of the language, as, for instance, when Gesenius (Lehrg. s. 242 
 and 244) stamps as a poetic idiotism the intransitive conception of 
 Piel and Hiphil (one quite opposed to the proper meaning of these 
 conjugations.) 
 
 § 30. DIALECTS OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE. 
 
 From the documents which have reached us of Hebrew anti- 
 quity, little can be concluded with certainty as to the difi^erences of 
 dialect in this language, partly on account of the limited compass 
 
 2 The effect of this may be given in German : " Das Volk da — du hastes j a erworben." 
 [The people there — thou hast indeed obtained it.] Exod.xv. 16; "Der ort da — du hast ihn 
 ja fiir sie gegriindet." [The place there — thou hast indeed founded it for them.] Ps. civ. 
 8. It is quite in accordance witli the poets to prefer these short broken clauses iu which 
 the language is as it were wrung out in individual expressions; see the excellent re- 
 marks of De Wette, Pss. Eiiil. s. 55, .3ie Aufl. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 163 
 
 of these, partly because they are for the most part the productions 
 of members of the kingdom of Judah. Hence the written lan- 
 guage is to be regarded not in any such dependence upon the style 
 of particular districts, hut as sustaining a more general character, 
 v.'hich the collective writers of the nation appropriated. That 
 nevertheless there were diversities of dialect in Palestine, is rendered 
 probable, partly a priori from the analogy of other allied lan- 
 guages, as e. gr. the Arabic, and is confirmed al.so by some his- 
 torical testimonies. There is no ground, then, for calling it in 
 question, as Loscher has done (De Causis Ling. Heb. p. 430 ; see 
 in reply to him Carpzov, Animad. Philol. Crit. Sacr. p 56.) As 
 JittJe, on the other hand, ought interchanges of letters, such as j^ 
 with ^, ^ with ;-y, ^ with q, &c., to be regarded as such, as some 
 scholars have done (so even Hartmann, Linguist. Einleit. s. 94, 
 95) ; these prove nothing as to a difference oi 'pronunciation, and 
 admit in the general of a much fitter explanation than that fur- 
 nished by the usage of provincial pronunciation. Least of all 
 admissible are such purely arbitrary assumptions, as that there are 
 Moabitisms in Kuth which Dereser will discover there ; on this see 
 Gesenius, Gesch. s. 54. All that can with any certainty be enun- 
 ciated on this head may be stated as follows : 
 
 1. It is in itself very likely that the style of speaking in the 
 north of Palestine was different from that in the south. This is 
 suggested by the consideration of the Phoenician (see § 21) ; there 
 must in the former have been Aramaisms, and it was on the whole 
 more corrupt and impure. We may be satisfied of this from the 
 well-known fact of the Ephraimite substitution of the ^ for the 
 ^, Judg. xii. G, which may be concluded to be a corruption of the 
 original usage of the language, as we may observe this gradual 
 softening of the Shin-'&oxan^ in the Hebrew itself, and we may infer 
 it would be much more so in the dialects.i Attempts have been 
 made to discover in the Hebrew documents themselves traces of 
 such a dialectical difference, and especially in the song of Deborah 
 (Judg. v.), which contains undoubted Aramaisms, and issued from 
 ilie tribe of Ephraim (Judg. iv. 5.)- It may, however, be alleged 
 
 1 Comp. Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. 28; Hnpfel.l, Exeroitt. Aetliiop.p. 5. Tlie passage, Judg. 
 xviii. ,3, proves nothing for a diversity of styles of speech ; tliere it is only of the indivi- 
 dual utterance of a Lcvite that mention is made. 
 
 2 So Fwald, Hohenl. s. 18, ff., Krit. Gr. s. .'j. Dopke z. Ilolieiil. s. 32. 
 
154 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 that these Aramaisms are due to the poetical character of the song, 
 and hence we are not justified in concluding from them in favour 
 of the existence of a northern dialect. But there are certain pe- 
 culiarities which rehut this allegation. Of these it may be men- 
 tioned that we meet here first with the ^jj iwaefixum (v. 7), which 
 never occurs in the Pentateuch ; it occurs here for the first time 
 in the poetry, and what is especially of weight, even in the prose 
 of the book of Judges, in the section containing the history of 
 Gideon (comp. vi. 17, vii. 12, viii. 2G.) This fact leads us to the 
 very probable conclusion, that at that time this idiotism impressed 
 itself on the language as a northern peculiarity ; it is especially 
 probable that the Phoenicians had the same form.^ Under this 
 head also may be classed the plural ending, here for the first time 
 
 occurring, '^'r^, v. 10, and forms like 'J^^?2i^» ^y^* 1^^^^^, ver. 
 14, which, excepting in the Chaldaic passages of Daniel and Neh. 
 ix. 22, 24, are very anomalous in so common a word. Hosea and 
 Amos have also been adduced as affording evidence on the point 
 before us, but great uncertainty hangs over the cases adduced from 
 them. We might expect the most to be found in the Song of 
 Solomon, since it may be supposed that the author of it must, on 
 account of the object, have borrowed much from the northern 
 dialect, whence the Aramaic hue of the book may be explained 
 (comp. Ewald, Hohenl. s. 19, fF.) ; still it is not to be denied that 
 the highly poetical character of the book is sufficient to account 
 here for its proportional, yet scanty, approximations to the Aramaic 
 usus. 
 
 2. It is not less probable that there was a vulgar dialect as 
 distinct from the language of literature. The former, as the 
 more impure and corrupt, prevailed especially as the Hebrew was 
 approaching its decay, during the period of the captivity. What 
 of it appertains to an earlier time can be determined only by ex- 
 treme labour (comp. Hirzel, 1. cit. p. 12.) To me it appears 
 most probable, that the only certain instances we have of a vulgar 
 dialect, by which the pure language was ultimately superseded, 
 are contained in the Pentateuch, and these but two; Exod. xvi. 15, 
 ^^ (comp. the Syr. |j^) where the popular word is expressly 
 
 1 Comp. Hirzel, L. cit. p. 15. 
 
 2 See Bellermann on the I'uuic passage of the Poenuliis 111. s. 13. 
 
 4 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OP THE OLD TESTAMENT. 155 
 
 used, as the author himself adds by way of correcliou, ^^n~n7:2 > 
 so also Gen. xlvii. 28 in a similar case (where prubably it was 
 designed that the thing should be uttered in the popular style), 
 ^p7 is a word of the people, which is to be closely connected 
 with the pronoun (D;3~)-^n' " there you have ;" comp. the Arab. 
 
 U> ^° LJk^5 and the Syr. !<n in I^CTI) ; see also Eichhorn Einl. 
 I. s. 79, 4te Ausg. 
 
 § 31. DIFFERENT PERIODS IN THE HEBREW LANGUAGE TILL THE 
 TIME OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 A. Mosaic Aye. 
 
 Difficult as it may seem in many respects to form definite pe- 
 riods in the Hebrew language and literature, and such as shall be 
 markedly distinguished from each other by their character, it is 
 nevertheless possible, by a close investigation, to fix such in 
 general,^ and what is chiefly to be done here is to indicate the bear- 
 ing of the more outward history of the people on the inward deve- 
 lopment and formation of the language and literature. It is true 
 there is also a higher point from which the latter may be viewed, 
 and in relation to which it must be surveyed, in so far as it is re- 
 garded as a special work of divine foresight, as sacred literature ; 
 but we have here first and chiefly to do with the other aspect of 
 this subject, that which regards the rise of those documents viewed 
 in relation to their form, from the human point of view, that is in 
 their natural development. 
 
 With Moses begins the proper literature of the nation. Before 
 him there were no doubt written documents from which he drew 
 materials for the primitive history, especially of his own people, 
 and in which many old expressions occur which, at the time of his 
 collecting and reconstructing them, were no longer current, and 
 are consequently explained by the writer himself, as Gen. xv. 2, 
 
 1 What has been attempted in this way (as bj- Gesenius Lib. cit. s. 21. tf., or by Hart- 
 mann, Lib. cit. s. 309, ff.), is properly no dividing into periods (writings before and writ- 
 ings after.the captivity), and its adduction leads to the greatest arbitrariness in this de- 
 partment. 
 
156 HISTOllV OF THE 
 
 Tl'^3. ptl^D ~D' ''^'® ^^" '^^ *'^^' lif^use-possession, ?.^'. ray heir, 
 comp. ver. 3, where this is explained by *i]-i^ tlJ")V T)**! ~1S > 
 and xxiv. 2, xvii, 5, QfT-i 'in Dn"l3i^^' according to the Arabic, 
 
 S ^ 3 
 
 \^ , which, according to the Kamus, signifies Jl-:=^S\ :^;ysiS\ 
 innnerus copiosiis (hence explained by D"i'ii\ 'j'i^on)' > xxxix. 20, 
 in'Dn n^n ^s explained by D^l^Db? IT^PH n^lDb? ntrt<( Dipp-^ 
 In like manner the two words ^-^^ and n*^^y, on the meaning oi 
 
 — T T T 
 
 which there is a play in Gen. :jcvii. 15, J G, liave no etymon in 
 Hebrew ; '^-y^ from XTW' Arab. \ ^ to be elevated, to rule 
 
 - X T T J ' 
 
 (comp. Sohultens, Exc. ex Ispah. p. 10 ; Hariri, Cons. V. p. 107), 
 corresponding to the Q^-li^' '^'er. 5, n'^tZ)'' Arab. \ , according to 
 
 — — T T J 
 
 the Kamus, valde prolifera fait mulier (Freytag, Lex. Arab. II. p. 
 304) comp. ver. 16. In the time of Moses, then, we see there 
 were extant written documents in which the language appears in such 
 a state of development that it easily became capable of being used 
 as a literary language in the more extended sense of the term. 
 Such a development it might the more readily receive in Egypt 
 from the circumstance that there the people lived apart by them- 
 selves, nay, stood in a hostile relation to the Egyptians (Gen. 
 xlvi. 34; Ex i. 13, 14), and hence would not be affected as to 
 their speech by a " language which they knew not" (Ps. Ixxxi. C.) 
 With the founder of the Theocracy, however, begins, as the his- 
 torical relations of the case might lead to expect, an entirely new 
 literary epoch. Even the specimens of the vulgar tongue found in 
 the Pentateuch (see preceding §) indicate the establishment of a 
 proper language of literature by which that was entirely superseded, 
 and which must have raised itself to general reception through the 
 
 1 "^mO can liaT'iUy mean imprisnnmeiil. here as it is oommonly taken, but corresponds 
 to tlie Heb. ptt-^s, n^'^3, and mia denotes a place in tbe royal castle. Coinp. in Syr. 
 
 p 7 X 7 () 
 
 \/_- ^>rn palace, castle, thence .; ...m^ aiilici : Assemani Bibl. or, I. 393. Bar 
 hebr. Chrou. p. 539. 
 
 2 See also Jahn Einl.II. I. s. 102. [See an erudite discussion of this name in Iken, 
 Diss. Pliilol. Tbeol. Diss. I.— Tr.] 
 
 3 This does not preclude tiie Egyptian customs, the idolatry of Egypt, from having 
 exerted an influence on the people (romp. Ex. xxxii. ; Jos. xxiv. 14; Ez. xxiii. 2, 3, 8, 
 21); but in this case u totally differ- nt relation is supposed, as for this there was no 
 need of any intimate iutercourse or intercommunion with tlio Egyptians. 
 
 3 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 157 
 
 autbority which attended upon it. With the new organization of 
 the people, the legislative form which this composition assumed in 
 the first instance stood in intimate relation ; then came the his- 
 tory of the people during that past time with which the present was 
 so closely connected ; and to this was again added Poetry, in the 
 shape of the sacred song as an essential part of the new worship 
 and its fairest ornament (see Exod. xv. ; Num. xx.83, x. 35; comp. 
 Ps. Ixviii. 3 ; Deut. xii. 12, xvi. 11, 14, xxvi. ll,xxvii. 7.)' From 
 this it comes to pass that in the Pentateuch there is a union of dif- 
 ferent kinds of writing, which at a later period served as models 
 in these different branches of literature. As in the Greek litera- 
 ture we find that each writer employed always the dialect of the 
 most eminent model in this or that department, so that the Ho- 
 meric poems, for instance, became the standing type of the Epos ; 
 in like manner among the Hebrews it became customary to revert 
 as to a common source to those ancient documents, alike for a rule 
 of life and for literary models. Hence the Pentateuch came to 
 exercise on the later books a totally different inflaence from that, 
 of the Coran on its subsequent literature, especially as the latter 
 was preceded by productions of far higher merit than it, and wor- 
 thy of being used as models. 
 
 As, in this way, standing at the top of the whole literature, the 
 Pentateuch maintains its pecuharity also in reference to style, as 
 even a very general survey will show. This is least apparent, as 
 might be expected, in the historical sections, in which, however, a 
 marked difference in point of age is apparent when we compare 
 them with the latest historical \f orks, such as Chronicles, Ezra, and 
 Nehemiah. Very peculiar, on the contrary, is the form in which 
 the laws are communicated ; it is marked by the greatest clearness, 
 and the most careful exactness, as is indicated formally in the in- 
 variable equality of the inscriptions, and concluding formula of each 
 law, in the repetition of the same word (to wit of the verb with each 
 more exact definition) ;" the laws are thus rendered very precise, 
 the language in which they are embodied is so compact, that they 
 
 1 T)ie expression, " to rejoice before the Lord," denotes here uotlaing else tliau 
 honour him by sacred songs ; comp. Spencer, De Legg. Heb. ritual, p. 884, ed. 3. Mo- 
 vers, Krit. Untersuch. iiber d. Bibl. Chronik, s. ]9,fF. 
 
 2 For example, nini? B^is affls sin D'as, Levit. v. 19 ; yitrs-^s nnV-iJn napi-ny -^ova 
 ainVin nsms'-s. Num. v. 3, etc. 
 
158 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 often resemble Proverbs, which are in this way with peculiar depth 
 imprinted on the memory. This is peculiarly the case with those 
 ever-recurring theocratic ground-notions, which are adduced as 
 the highest motives to obedience, as ';;^^'^*> "^^j.^ (^. ffr. Lev. xxii. 
 30 — 33, where it occurs four times in the four verses) ; or, " I am 
 your God and ye are my people ;" " I have brought you out of 
 Egypt," &c.^ From this the language itself obtained a very de - 
 finite character, great purity and correctness, just as we see from 
 a similar cause in the writings of the Latin Jurists, though they 
 wrote in the age of declining I-atinity, when one wonders to find 
 purity of style and good writing . In the poetical parts, however, 
 of the Pentateuch, the peculiarity of style is especially noticeable, 
 for in these we find not only a wonderful elevation and force of ex- 
 pression, but also a want of artificiality in point of form, which is 
 foreign to the following period of poetry, and finds only in lyric 
 poems like (hat of Deborah anything analogous to it. All is here 
 made to depend on the boldness of the expression, which consti- 
 tutes during this period the essential element of the poetry, as 
 parallelism and the strophal construction are not attended to, It 
 is by comparing these poems with those of a later age, in which 
 similar themes are handled, and which were composed with the 
 former in the eye of the writer, that their characteristic peculiarities 
 become most manifest, e.^r. Ps. Ixviii., where the parallel may be 
 very completely drawn ; thus e. gr., the commencement, ver. 5 (4), 
 " Sing unto God, sing praises to his name," compared with " To 
 Jehovah will I sing," Exod. xv. J ; the simple 'J'i^*'\y^3, ver. 8 
 (7), with the unwieldy but energetic sf2t2:;i ^"''^ ^nPl' I^eut. xxxii. 
 10; the turn, ver. 14 (13) with Gen. xlix. 14 (Judg. v. 16) ; ver. 
 18 (17) withDeut. xxxiii. 2; ver. 22 (21) with Deut. xxxiii. 11, 
 &c — The style of Deuteronomy partakes of a rhetorical character 
 which not seldom reminds one of the prophetical admonitions 
 
 1 Such laws as Exod. xxi. 23, 24, "ji i;>o PhPi yi T;y rihri y'S «;S3 ntiPi 'res, are pro- 
 
 perly proverbs, the meaning of which is given in what follows ; some other passages 
 simply refer to the Gnomes as Lev. xxiv. 19 ; Deut. xix. 21. Such passages sometimes 
 have a formal poetic parallelism, as pmii ms nstti !i3*3V^i tia^tS nSttl, Lev. xxiv. 21, a 
 formal versus memorialia to be viewed as the refrain of the law ; comp. also Exod. 
 xxii. 19, 27 ; Lev. iii. 17, v. 26, &c. 
 
 2 Comp. Ziramern, Gesoh. d. Rom. Privat-Rechts I. 235, ff. Bahr, Gesch. d. Bom. 
 Lit. s. 547. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 159 
 
 (comp. e. gr. iv. 1, fF. ; v. 'Z, fF ) ; this is in perfect keeping with 
 the historical relations, as in that book we have the farewell words 
 of the Lawgiver, who vividly retraces the proofs of the divine grace, 
 and the obduracy of the people in the former time, and antici- 
 pates in that which is to come new blessings and at the sametime 
 new and terrible chastisements. " Magnum atque incoraparabilem 
 legislatorem," says Pareau excellently, Instit., p. 408, " eundemque 
 summopere venerabilem senem audire mihi videor loquentem, qui 
 post superatas incredibiles molestias morti suorumque adeo laborum 
 fini proximus cum summa dignitate eximioqne animi afFectu suos 
 populares ad legum suarum observationem omnibus modis permo- 
 vere ita studebat, nihil ut ad ejus indolem, consilium ac personam 
 magis appositLim fiugi posse, mihi persuasissimum habeam." 
 
 Even in minute particulars the diction^ of the Pentateuch attests 
 itself to be very peculiar. This would come out still more were it 
 not that the later writers conformed themselves so closely to this 
 as to the model they had before their eyes, and shaped their diction 
 accordingly. Particularly marked is this imitation of the Penta- 
 teuch in the writings of the time of the captivity and later, when 
 the relations of the age naturally induced a recurrence to the 
 earlier treasure of divine revelations ;^ but when especially also the 
 language had lost its substantiality, and for its maintenance bad ex- 
 changed a free development for a cleaving to what bad been in the 
 earlier period. Still the idiom of the Pentateuch may be recognised 
 as a treasure of peculiar expressions and ideas, from an exact in- 
 vestigation of which its original character cannot be missed, so that 
 what alone appertains to it may be viewed as the earliest in the de- 
 velopment of the language. This by excellent and profound gram- 
 marians of our day has been acknowledged in favour of the high 
 antiquity of that book ;^ only that, fettered by the prejudices of a 
 one-sided and perverted criticism, they have sought to restrict this 
 
 1 Comp. Jalin, iiber Spraclie und Schreibart des Pent., in Ben gel's Arch i v. fur d. TheoL 
 II. 3. uud III. 1. This is a sadly uncritical production. More thorough, but not ex- 
 haustive is the Aufs. d. Aechtheit d. Pent, aus s. Sprache, in Tholuck's Lit. Anz., 1833, 
 No. 44, 45. 
 
 2 See my Comment, on Dan., s. 319, ff. 
 
 3 Comp. Ewald, Gram. d. Hebr. Spr. in ausf. Kiirze. s. 3. Bbttcher. Proben, &c., s. 
 70, who with justice blames 'the " new hypercriticisra which has too little considered the 
 linguistic character of the first four books of Moses, to be able to confute their, in part, 
 very high antiquity." 
 
160 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 observation to the first four books, whereas it is evideut that all 
 the books of the Pentateuch participate in these pecuHarities. What 
 these are may be stated as follows : — 
 
 We begin with mentioning the ^ec\x\\\\\ii\Qsm grammatical for- 
 mation. The making no distinction of gender in the pron. ^*)pf 
 is regular in the Pentateuch, the ^^n belongs here to the ano- 
 mahes of diction ; in all the other books, however, the masc and 
 fern, are invariably discriminated, and so also in the Dialects. In 
 this respect the usage of the Pentateuch stands in the same relation 
 to the later usage, as tlie further formation of the 001, OOl, jOI, _>Ol, 
 in Aramaic bears to the Hebrew simplicity generally. The ground- 
 form of the demonstrative pronoun appears in nt^»^ Gen. xxiv. 
 65 ; xxxvii. 19 (elsewhere only in poetry. Is. Iviti. 5, and here with 
 a special emphasis which is not noticeable in the Pentateuch.) As 
 an Archaism Ezekiel uses also the form 'i^y^. With this may be 
 
 compared the Arabic i^^, especially peculiar to the poets ; 
 
 Ewald, Gr. Arab. I. 334. The older form ^^n i^ place of n^^, 
 occurs eight times in the Pentateuch in all the books ; elsewhere 
 only in the imitative passage, 1 Chron. xx. 8.^ The Pentateuch 
 uses the short form only where (for syntactical reasons) the 
 article is used ; so that it is an abuftus when the Chrot)icler 
 places this form in a case in which the Pent, would have used 
 
 1 This cannot be viewed, as Ewald proposes, as a compound pronoun (Gr. Kr.,p. 
 174.) For the Hebrew in its simplicity was a stranger as yet to compound pronouns, such 
 as are found in more cultivated languages ; to this the composition with the article 
 which however is sj/H<«c/ita% nectssitated (Ewald, s. 625, ff.), furnishes only an ap- 
 parent exception. From nT? is abbreviated m, just as the roots, os^s. asp, won, 
 aas, ay are connected; see Ewald, Hohenl., s. 1J6. Conip. Peiper de Lebidi Moall. 
 
 p. 71. ' 
 
 2 The form has nevertheless been so misunderstood by even our most recent gram- 
 marians (Ewald, s. 173. Stier, Neugeordn. Lehrgeb , s. 180), that they liave classed it 
 with the article bn, Vs, and not with the sin^ulai'm. In opposition to this there ai'e 1, 
 the use of it with the article in ^sn ; aad, 2, the form nVs itself. The formation of the 
 pronoun may be represented thus • from ItV, mT^ comes the regular plural form extant in 
 
 the Arab. . »JiJvJ^, contracted in the Zabic into ■]"'rn, in the Hebr. (for the more 
 exact distinction from the singular, through the expulsion of the i into pVs; The n at 
 the end is for the more emphatic designation of the plural, which, however, is without 
 any proper ending in this sort of words, as in the Aramaic there is the analogous status 
 eiuphatifiis. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 161 
 
 ouly the fuller form. — ^^n^ (comp. the Arab, ^^j^^) occurs four 
 times in the Pent. ; elsewhere only twice in the whole of the 0. T. 
 The excellent remarks of Ewald on the gradual rise of the ^ pros- 
 theticum (s. 73, ff. comp. s. 117), may be applied here; they 
 would show that the form ^'^fXl i^ ^^^^ more ancient. — Of suffixes 
 we find the old not-contracted form *ipf — in the Pent. (Gen. i. 12, 
 21) ; at a later period in prose only in Judg. xix. 24 ; that formed 
 from this, and constituting the transition to '^ — , viz. n — ' i^ '^^^^ 
 frequent in the Pent.; Gen. xlix. 11 ; Exod. xxii. 4, 26 ; xxxii.. 
 17; Lev. xxiii. 13; Num. x. 36, (Jos. xi. 16), in later books 
 only in poetry, and even here but seldom, and as an archaism, in 
 the books of the captivity (Kings and Ezekiel) ; see the passages 
 in Hiller, De Arcano Ketibh et Keri, p. 37. Perfectly unique and 
 primitive is the verbal suffix ^^ — , Exod. xv. 5. Ancient is the 
 verbal form n^l^V"^' ^^n. xxx. 38, see my Comment, on Daniel, 
 s. 303 [where the author maintains that the word is not aChaldaism, 
 and of later usage, but the ancient form of the word.] A peculiar 
 abbreviation of the imperative, which is altogether in keeping with 
 the original character of this form, occurs in the forms ^J^T^tl?' Gen. 
 iv. 23, ^^"^p. Ex. ii. 20, see Gesenius, Lehrg. s. 290. Ewald, s. 
 286. — The py — intensive in the second mode with ^ couversive 
 occurs in the whole Pentateuch only four times, but in the books 
 of the immediately following period it is very common (see Judg. 
 vi. 10; X. 12; xii. 3; Ps. iii. 6; vii. 5), whilst in the writings 
 of the time of the captivity it is regular. — The full aud original 
 form 'j^ — as a termination-syllable in the first mode occurs in 
 Deut. viii. 3, 16, 'j^^-^'i, besides this only once in the poetry of 
 Isaiah xxvi. 16 ; comp. Ewald, s. 265. Eichhorn (Einl. I. 76, 
 4te Aufl.) justly regards the form as an archaism, and what Ge- 
 senius has urged in reply (Lehrg. s. 265), is founded on a misun- 
 derstanding of the v — The Niphal form of the verbs j^q has 
 throughout retained its gutteral formation ; only in the Pentateuch 
 is the original retained tPlS^j' Num. xxxii. 30 ; it occurs again in 
 the passage Josh. xxii. 9, but this is an express citation of the 
 other.^ Pecuhar is the transposition of the ^ in Hithpael with 
 
 \ The words used beie are rriis -"z -'■n"' ^s,~'>'J- Strange tliat Gesenius should cite 
 o)7/y tbe passage in Joshua! (Lehrg. s. 377.) 
 L 
 
1 62 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Other letters than Dentals, to wliich elsewhere it is restricted, thus 
 !22Jnri ^'^^^ n^in'^n'^ Exod. ii. A, which in Arab, has come to be 
 the regular form in the eighth conjugation.- The inf. constr. of 
 ipf^ has only in the Pent, its original form ^p^' Gen. xxxviii. 9 ; 
 Num. XX. 21. — The rise of the verbs 'i^ from stems -^^ may be 
 frequently recognised in the Pentateuch, though here also the later 
 usage appears, as Gen. vi, 3, ^y^"^, Gen. xxiv. 63, n^U?' Exod. iv. 
 
 II, Q^^i, Deut. XXX. 9, )2^'\\^, &c. — The strong noun-forms q — 
 Q — , in place of 'j'') — and ^ — occur most frequently in the Pent. 
 Thus D^i'TS, Num. iii. 49 (besides 'j'^i'Tg, Exod. xxi. 30), D'^"^'^, 
 Deut. xxxiii. 23 (this, however, occurs also in the books of the 
 captivity), Q^p Gen. xxviii. 12, ^35 Exod. viii. 13, 14. Only 
 Q*;?^^ is expressly a later noun. — The abstract formation with ^ 
 
 T 
 
 prefixed is found in reference to relations of time only in the Pent., 
 comp. Gen. xxxviii. 24, ^ij^^^Q, a space of three (months) ; Exod. 
 xii. 40, ^t2)i^' ^^^^ ^i'^® of residence. — The gender appears strangely 
 
 T 
 
 neglected in •^^^, a young^man or maid.^ Analogous is the use of 
 03, which often in the Pent, occurs in a transferred sense, without 
 assuming, as by rule it should in that case, the feminine form : thus 
 it is used Lev. xxiii. 40, for the branch of the palm ; the later 
 usage is l^g^. — The termination of the status constr. in -^ is pecu- 
 liar to the Pent, only in prose ; it is also distinguished by the use 
 of the 1 — in the same sense ; comp. Ewald, s. 376, S. — The form 
 Q^pi, the constituent, the essence," occurs only in Gen. vii. 4, 23 ; 
 Deut. xi. ; comp. Ewald, s. 2C1. — There is much also in a s//jt- 
 tactical respect that is worthy of notice ; the use of the Pron. separ. 
 in the casus obliquus without any other pronoun preceding, as 
 "T^"^ t^^n Dil r\U?7' Gen. iv. 26, x. 26, for which in later books 
 
 1 [Qu. n-.i';rn ?— Tb.] 
 
 2 So ScLultens has already correctly explained this form (Institt. Heb. p. 470) with 
 the accordance of Vater, Hebr. Sprachl. s. 271; Lee, Grammar of the Heb. Lang. p. 219, 
 sec. ed., Stier, s. 3oL Here Gesenius errs, Lehrg. s. 386. 
 
 - A similar phenomenon is found in the Old German, see Grimm, Gr. III. 319. A 
 
 •X. 
 
 converse case is furnished by the appending of the Masc. VJoZjD i^i ^^ XwX^x Aramaic 
 usage to nVinS (see, t.ijr., Assem. Bibl. Orient. I. 362.) Also in the Old Latin the same 
 thing is found : Etiam in commentariis sacrorum pontificalium frequenter est /lic ovis 
 t< /laec agnm ac haec porcus, quae non ut vitia sed ut anliqaam consueludiiicm teslan- 
 tia debemus accipere. Festus p. 236, ed. Liudemaun. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 1 G3 
 
 y^ is used, see 2 Sam. vi. 23. — The influence of thesuflfix on a fol- 
 lowing substantive is of such a kind that it alters its form without 
 giving it the suffix, thus niQII '^ti^ ^^ place of '^jp|-^^'j, see Ewald 
 Ivurz. Gr. s. 288 (imitated in Is. xii. 2 ; Ps. cxviii. 14.)— The 
 word ;-f^7;2 is always used in the Pent, as a substantive, and it is 
 not till a later period that like the other numerals it loses this its 
 proper form; Ewald, Kr. Gr. s. 628. — Interesting is the expres- 
 sion of measures of qucmtitij. To convey the idea of times there 
 was in the post-Mosaic language a double expression fixed, either 
 (a) with the substantive Q^q, Qi^^i^S' ^^ (^) ^^® simple numeral, 
 where no amphiboly happened.^ In the Pent, this fixed usage does 
 not appear, and besides these modes of expression we find also the 
 following : {ci) '^v^'X^, Ex. xxiii. 14 ; Num. xxii. 28, 32, 33 ; this 
 occurs wc^/>7(!6^r6^ else ;■"' {h) Q'^^'q, an old word, ^xo^^qiXv numhers, 
 from "^ = n!3?2' ^^n. xxxi. 7, 41. 
 
 There are besides in the Pent, a great many peculiar ancient ex- 
 pressions and turns of words, of which the principal may be men- 
 tioned here: \'XS^, of young birds. Gen. xv, 9; Deut. xxxii. 11. 
 In the later books we have for this simply 'j3_. — n^51 ^^ a par- 
 ticle, like t'Sou, for 'j;-j, f-fSH' occurs nine times in the Pent, (in imi- 
 tation of this Josh. vi. 2, viii. 1 ; cf. Gen. xli. 41); elsewhere 
 only in 1 Sam. vii. 2 ; 2 Sam. xv. 3. — nD?2' <^)ioNgh, Deut. xvi. 
 10, cf. Michaelis, Supplement II. p. 1528, for the word used 
 elsewhere, ^-^, Koster Erliiuterungen, d. H. Schr., s. 121. — nt^' 
 here, Gen. xxxviii. 21, xlviii. 9; Num. xxii. 19, xxiii. 1 ; else- 
 where only 71"^' ^ Sam. xxi. 10, according to a later mode of 
 writing; see Hitzig on Is. s. 300. — )yr\^ belly. Gen. iii. 14; 
 Lev. xi. 42. — 'j'i^ in the sense oi pain, smart, only in Gen, xxxv. 
 18; Deut. xxvi. 14, The other writers always p^, except Hos, 
 ix. 4, where there is evidently a reference to the Pent. comp. Gesen. 
 Thes. i. p. 52, — >iq species, in the Pent, twenty-eight times (thence 
 
 1 The n^py, Nell. ix. 28, in tbe same sense is an Aramaic form of speecb, seeMicLae- 
 lis, Gr. Syr. p. 282. Hoft'inau, Gr. Syr. p. 805. 
 
 '^ Hence tlie expression in tbe passage in Exod. was so misunderstood by the Jews that 
 they took h'jr\ in tbe sense of J'esiival, because this word really has this meaning with 
 them. Buxtorf,Lex. Rab. Chald.Talm. p. 2204, sq.Hartmann, Thes. Ling. Heb. e Mishna 
 augend. III., p. 113. 
 
 L 2 
 
164 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 by Ez. Ixvii. 10, comp. Gen. i. 21), for which, as early as the age 
 of David, ^f was used, Ps. clxiv. 13. — For ^^p to curse,^ the later 
 usage was ^^^ — 3,^3 ^" ^^^^ Pent, fourteen times, nowhere in any 
 of the other books, which always use i^y^^ which also is found in the 
 Pent. The first form appears to have been the original, since it 
 adheres most closely to the etymology."^ ^2"1 and \2J^^-^ are very 
 common in Genesis, also Num. xvi. 32, but disappear from use 
 till the latest books (Dan., Chrou., Ezra), where, however, the latter 
 is used without any regard to its proper meaning, of cattle (see 
 2 Chr. xxxi. 3) ; whereas in the Pent, this is always the proper ap- 
 pellation of dead property as distinguished from living (nip?^? \rD2 ? 
 comp. the Homeric expression «:et/x?;\ta reTTpo/SaalvTe. Od. II. 75.) 
 Peculiar phrases are chiefly the following : their shadow (Qn^j) ^^ 
 
 T - 
 
 gone from them (Num. xiv. 9), an old poetical phrase for their help 
 is taken from them, they are helpless ; this occurs nowhere else, 
 though '^^j in the sense of defence, help is common in poetry. — Quite 
 peculiar to the Pent, is the phrase Vf2V h^ ^Di^2' 'which never is 
 used in the other books, but only ')*i]-\'^^^ Q^ n!D\D- "^^^'^ stands 
 closely connected with the consequent phraseology of the Pent., which 
 has been as little attended to it as it is profoundly conceived, q^ 
 stands in the Pent, continually in a strict juridical sense suited to its 
 etymology (properly the confederate, rad. Qj^j^), and is discriminated 
 in the singular from i*i;j, which is never used of the people of God 
 who are regarded as bound together by an internal theocratic prin- 
 ciple of unity. In the Post-Mosaic period we first meet with the 
 interchange of those two words. ^ In the Prophets also the plural 
 
 1 Also the derivatives nsp and nap are the peculiar property of the Pent., Num. 
 XXV. 8 ; Deut. xviii. 3. See on the lormer Lorsbach in Paulus Neuem Eepetor. III. 110 
 ff. Dopke, Annott. ad Michaelis Chr. Syr. p. 171, sq. Friihn de Arab. auct. libr. vulg. &c. 
 p. 21 sq. Jen. Al. Lit. Zeit. Erganz. Bl. 1821. No. 27, s. 210. 
 
 2 The etymology given by Gesenius isuot felicitouf. The root is the Arab. , t .^ ..*:^ . 
 
 prop. roUigerc, ticquirere, (connected with 033 '£33 i^Jt^s, '° ti'ead with the feet, 
 
 thence to subdue) to gain, hence l__ja«*^=ij hicriim (e. gr. Gen. xxvi. 14, Arab. Vers. 
 ofErpenius) — conseqi\eu\}y revenue, prnpei-ty, specially the property of the Nomades, 
 \\z., cuttle ; comp. nspa 
 
 3 Hence Gesenius, Thes. p. 272, must be corrected. The passages adduced by him 
 from Genesis prove the very opposite of what he asserts. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 165 
 
 is used in a wider acceptation (e. gr. Hos. ix. 1 ; Is xi. 10, &c.) ; / 
 whilst on the contrary in the Pent, it is always used in a proper ' 
 sense in keeping with the singular meaning constantly in it. 
 Thoughout it denotes what belongs to the q^ as a whole, the | 
 constitutive part of it fpopularesj ; hence, after the founding of ^ 
 the theocracy by Moses, constantly the twelve tribes = Qit^j^t^? 
 (thus in Exod., Lev., Num., Deut.) The later books do not require 
 this usage (for in the passage in Hosea x. 14, Di^;y is hands, ■ 
 troops.)^ With this stands in pretty close connexion the use of ; 
 ]-\"i»2y belonging to the Pent, properly the y<?//o?e'.s/(!?)?, the f?ow- \ 
 federacy^ in this sense also constant ; there is no need for translating 
 it neighbour, which, moreover, does not suite the abstract form. 
 Inseparable fi'om this is the use of nnDt2J?2 ^^ denoting the i 
 individual tribes, wliich limited usage the earlier prophets (Amos 
 iii. 1 ; Micah ii. 3) already have lost sight of. Therewith also 
 hangs coonected in fine, the use of ^^ ■p^^'r^ family, which expres- 
 sion does not occar in the later writers, except in the imitative 
 passage, 1 Chr. v. 22, comp. Michaelis, Mos. Reclit. I. 227. — 
 nn''3n W'\ ^^^^ sweet savour of an offering pleasing to God 
 (comp. Koster, Erl. s. 222), is found only in the Pent., but there 
 extraordinarily often. That at a later period this was viewed as 
 unusual is shown by the variation of it nnt?2 H"^"^' ^ Sam. xxvi. 
 ] 9. — The phrase 'pi'^XV n?:^^p ^^ properly the address to God at the 
 setting forward of the Ark (Num. x. 3.5), from which proper and 
 historical usage it is often employed in the Psalms in the tropical f 
 sense of help. — The turos ^y-^yr) y^^V^^ Num. xiv. 44, and 
 ^y^'r)\i '^'^*^T}T\^ Deut. i. 41, are ancient and quite peculiar, and can 
 be explained only by'the help of the Arabic (see Schultens, Animad. 
 Phil. ad. h. 1.) — The denoting of copulation by H'^*^^ Tv7^ ^^ ^ 
 standing usage of the Pent., followed only by Ez. xxii. 10, which j 
 passage plainly alludes to Lev. xx. 11. In later writers the analo- | 
 gous ;Ti~i^n?2 nT'il (P^*-^^^^ '^^- ^) ^lone occurs. How at a later pe- | 
 riod this phrase bore a quite different meaning is shown (Is. Ixvii. 2. 
 
 1 Exactly similar is the relation of gens (genus) and gentes, cf. Servius ad Virg. Aen. 
 I. 67. Gronov. ad. Senec. Hippoi. 900. 
 
 2 See on the idea Tholuck Ausl.d. Bergpredigt. s. 326, ff., also Hengstenberg, CLris- 
 tologie II. 333, flF. 
 
1 66 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 — Only in the Pent, do we find the phrase V'^j^n V^V ni^ PTDS 
 to cover the eye of the earth, a poetical representative pictorial 
 expression, in which the earth is personified as a woman with a 
 veiled countenance; Exod. x. 5, 15; Num. xxii. 5, 1 1 ; (see Lit. 
 Anz. No. cit. s. 354.) 
 
 These and similar ohservances of a constant ancient usage of lan- 
 guage have heen for the most part entirely ignored hy recent critics, 
 who have asserted that the Pentateuch is not genuine ; especially 
 have attempts heen made to detect a very late usage in Deu- 
 teronomy.^ But a strict investigation of the examples adduced in 
 support of this shows leather the very opposite of tliis assertion, and 
 the refutation of what has been advanced with this view must serve 
 as a very strong positive proof of the antiquity of this specially 
 mishandled book, as well as a confirmation of the peculiarity of the 
 linguistic treasures of the Mosaic Period. As later words and phrases 
 the following have been adduced. " The words j-j^'^^h 'j]-|j, Deut- 
 xxviii. 25." But that we have the earlier usage in Deuteronomy 
 appears — 1, Prom the form H'l^^'j' f'^^' wbich Isaiah has the later 
 ni^Tt' xxviii. 19, and Jeremiah also constantly, also the Aramaic 
 
 lloi (Asseman. Bibl. Or. I. 47, 361); only Ezekiel, following the 
 Pentateuch, again writes nii^t (xxiii. 46) ; 2. How the expression 
 came to be borrowed from the Pentateuch is shown in Ezeldel by 
 the form of the word, — in the Chronicles (2 Chron. xxix. 8) by 
 the connection, as the writer plainly adduces the fulfilling of the 
 ancient prediction ,2 — in Jeremiah by the entire phrase pii^lT^ 
 V^b^n ]li3T'?2'2 hy7> ^l^ich recurs four times with him, a fact 
 which cannot be viewed as accidental (xv. 4 ; xxiv. 9 ; xxix. 18 ; 
 xxxiv. 17). — " Qi'^'j in the sense of strange Gods, xxxii. 26 ; comp. 
 
 •T 
 
 Jer. iii. 13, v. 19." A most incorrect remark ! In Jer. v. 19 Q'l'^'p 
 
 •T 
 
 means foes ; in the Old Testament generally it never signifies idols, 
 but only in the later usage gallant, according to the analogy of 
 j-l-^f, a strange woman, an unchaste woman, thus Jer. ii. 25, iii. 13 ; 
 
 1 So De Wette de Deuteronomio (Jeuae 1805, 4to), p. 7, sq. ; Vater, Commeut, iib d. 
 Pent. III., 493 ; Gesenius, Gescb. s. 32; Hartmaiiu, iib d. Pent. s. 043, ft'. The last 
 adduces tlie most uuraerous examples, and heuce has been chiefly noticed by us. 
 
 2 " As ye see with your eyes," i.e. words the fulfilment of which is now so manifestly 
 realized. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 107 
 
 Ez. xvi. 32 (comp. Hos. v. 7, \y\yf D"^3S' cbildren of whoredom). 
 In the passage in Deuteronomy the word cannot signify idols ; (a) 
 because of the Parallehsm (jil^'^Jii) ; (^) because of the ancient 
 usage ^^^-y, which the parallelism suggests as to be brought into ap- 
 plication here in the sense of nausea, disgust, Num. xi. 20, — " fr^^ 
 Month, xxi. 13," occurs also Exod. ii. 2, and is, as respects the 
 meaning, quite distinct from \y"Tn» ^^e Ideler, Handb. der Math. -^ 
 und Tech. Chronik. I. 488. — " j-fp^ Doctrine, xxxii. 2," is not 
 found in the late books, otherwise we must somehow adjudge Pro- 
 verbs and Isaiah to be such ; the word is poetic. — " '^H'^^ 
 thy repudiated ones, xxx. 4." What there is in this word indica- 
 tive of a later usage I cannot conceive ; comp. 2 Sam. xiv. 13. 
 " nUJJ' ^" Hiphil, to lend, xv. 2, xxiv. 10." But it so happens 
 that the Hiphil is exactly the original, and the one corresponding 
 to the idea of the verb (see Exod. xxii. 24), and the use oftheKal 
 in this sense is a later usage. " tL^jn^' to uproot, xxix. 27." But 
 how the special meaning (in exihum agere) passed from that 
 in Deuteronomy to the later usage is shown by Jer. xii. 14, 
 where the entire phrase is constructed out of Deuteronomy. — 
 " D"^2UJ''5' ^'^^^ parts, xxi. 7." But the expression became absolute 
 at a later period, and was only transferred from this place as well 
 to 2 Kings ii. 9 as to Zech.xiii. 8 (see Hengstenberg, Christologie 
 11.342). — "73y;}> to kill the youth," xxxii. 25. This word occurs 
 also in the other books of the Pentateuch, and has in the place 
 cited certainly the meaning assigned, but to adduce this as its 
 proper meaning is to overlook the influence of the poetic style which 
 alone gives it this. — " n^'^'^T*!?' obduracy, xxix. 18." In the fes- 
 
 1 This word, indeed, bas been incorrectly explained and derived even in the most recent 
 Lexicons, e. gr., Winer, p. 278. '^'^1 signifies properly decUnare, deflectcre, as vcell in Ileb. 
 
 (Ps. lxxviii.30),asinArab.rl A (Coran. sviii. 16; Schultens, Exc. ex. Ham. p. 484. not. 
 Ant. Moall. xxviii. 69), hence (//) to he estranged, hostile, (c) ahhorrere, fastidire, so 
 
 lit Joh xix. 17; Syr. |55^ I, contemptus est, Arah.LfrA (e. gr, Lokman, Fab. ii.) 
 
 r^i' ^_ij fastidivit. Thenoe s'^'t nausea, fastidium, which is also a masculine form(see 
 Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. 294, note), wherefore, according to the same analogy, it may be 
 easily formed from -iH as that from h^i. 
 
IbS HISTORY OF THE 
 
 tival Psalm of Asaph (Ps. Ixxxi., comp. Clauss, Beitr. z. Krit. 
 und Exeg. d. Pss. s. 42G, ff.), this word is borrowed from 
 Deuteronomy, ver. ] 3, which is rendered all the more proba- 
 ble by the fact that the Psalm is composed of passages from 
 the Pentateuch. Still more may the passage of Jeremiah, 
 where the expression occurs, be viewed as borrowed. — " '^•7?^, 
 honour, majesty, v. 21, ix. 26, for "Ti^^-" But '^-yj^ is ex- 
 pressly distinguished from Ti^^, see Deut. v. 21. It is not 
 '^'^'^ that is the later word, but n ^sin (p^ God, Ps. cxlv. 3 ; 1 
 Chrou. xxix. 11) as is the case with all such abstract words, which 
 are never found in the Pentateuch. Of God, however, '^j-yr^ is used, 
 Num. xiv. 19, with which passage Deut. ix. 2G exactly corresponds 
 (the greatness of the forgiving grace of God.) — " ^"^n *^V3. ^^ 
 remove the wicked, xiii. 6, &c." On this much stress is laid, and 
 yet most unreasonably. That the formula is not of later origin is 
 shown by Judges xx. 13, where it occurs with verbatim reference 
 to the Pentateuch. But it is a mistake to take this as identical 
 with " this soul shall be extirpated from among the people." The 
 latter does not always denote death-puuishment ;^ but an uproot- 
 ing out of the Theocracy, i.e., a deprivation of the gracious privi- 
 leges of the Theocracy,^ — the criminal must endure a theocratic 
 penalty. But the phrase in Deuteronomy has quite another mean- 
 ing ; it does not describe a general punishment, but a definite 
 removal of the wicked ; it on this account refers constantly to a 
 definite action of the people, and hence everyicliere there is men- 
 tioned along with it the punishment to be inflicted, usually death 
 (from which the only exception is in xix. 19.) The formula is 
 thus well suited to Deuteronomy, which is to be viewed generally 
 as the statute book in which minuter arrangements are specified. — 
 " rrin"^ DUJ i^np- to call upon the name of Jehovah, to worship 
 him, xxxii. 3." There is nothing here indicative of a later origin ; 
 
 1 See Michaelis, Mos. Recbt V. 40 ; Vater, Peut. 1.211: Gesenius and Winer, s. v. 
 
 2 This is clear, 1, from the circumstance that in many passages the punishment is 
 not more exactly indicated, wliere God reserves the infliction of it to himself; 2, from the 
 passages such as Lev. vii 18, fF. c. xvii., where this phrase is used interchinigenbly with 
 yS sb: to bear his guilt, to receive the recompence thereof; 3, from Ps. xxxvii. 22, 
 where tbat wider idea is presented by the antithetical phrase, to inherit the land ; 4, from 
 Ezra X. 8, where instead of it we find "•5n~"3 h-rz^. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF TPIE OLD TESTAMENT. 169 
 
 the phrase is good old Hebrew. — " i^S ^y I'^tL^H' to lay to heart, 
 iv. 39, XXX. 1." So Hartmann, s. 660. A terrible oversight! In 
 Deuteronomy the words are 3,^-^^ I'^tl^n- This is strictly the 
 most ancient form, which is found nowhere else. Isaiah has 
 already in place of it '^i^, xlvi. 8. With perfect accuracy Winer 
 says, Lex. p. 718 : "in recentioribus tamen libris non negamus^V 
 pro ^^ positum reperiri." The properly late phrase which was 
 already allied to the Aramaic, is 1^7 ^i^ D^t!} ^^- Dan. i. 8 ; 
 Mai. ii. 2, for which in the older books we have also ^^, 2 Sam. 
 xiii. 83. — " niD '^2L'l ^'^ teach apostacy, xiii. 5." The phrase is 
 used quite naturally in the law with reference to the false prophets, 
 and just as naturally it is used by Jer. xxviii. 16, xxix. 32, where 
 this law is cited and the use of it required. — "Vi^-J^^, that which 
 is nothing less than wood, xxxii. 21." So Hartmann, s. 661. 
 But in Deuteronomy the words are ^^-^^^ ! ! What he quotes 
 occurs in Isaiah. There has b^n here an overlooking of the rule 
 that this union of ^^^ with a substantive, so as to enunciate an 
 adjectival conception, occurs only with the poets (and therefore 
 quite appropriately in the passage in Deuteronomy) comp. Ewald, 
 Krit. Gr. s. 655 ; in iwose\i is found only in the very late writers, 
 as in 1 Chron. ii. 30, where it is an Aramaism; see Hoffmann, Gr. 
 Syr., p. 3 1 2. — " -^tl^^ 'H'l 7^^ i" reference thereto, that, since ; xxii. 
 24 ; xxiii. 5. This phrase forms the transition to the two synonvraous 
 phrases formed in the same way, ^ jllin Si^ Eccles. vii. 14, and 
 ■^■^ D'l^.'^ 7*2^' D^tt. ii. 30." But it is altogether an error to seek 
 the late and the Aramaising peculiarity of the phrase in the ^n 
 ■^1*!' "wl^icb is old Hebrew ; that appears rather in the mutation of 
 the concrete "^2^ into the abstract jT^^'^- Hence this phrase is 
 really an evidence of the antiquity of Deuteronomy. 
 
 But we are told further that " the infinitive with a feminine ter- 
 mination" must be a late peculiarity (Hartmann 1. cit.) If it must, 
 it cannot be helped, only such forms are found in all the books of 
 the Pentateuch (even in Gen. xix. 10), and their rise has its reason 
 in the nature of the infin. as that which forms the transition from 
 the verbal to the noun form, and the older the writing is the more 
 likely is it to bear the stamp of such formations, one of which is found 
 in Gen. xix. 19, which one re-appears in Amos. iv. 11, a passage 
 
170 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 verbally cited hence. i — " The feminine ending p — of the third 
 pers. of the verb" occurs in all the books of the Pent. — " The 
 union of the part, "j^ ^vilh the fut. in the sense of that not, 
 xxxiii. 11." But here we have poetry of the most daring kind, 
 and the 'j^^ *)pi is to be construed as an independent clause. En- 
 tirely analogous is the use of the Dt][jQ, Gen. xlix. 24, comp. 
 Ewald, s. 577 and C47. This forbids our comparing the feeble 
 Aramaic ? ^-^. — " *ir^ from anything, inde." But this is in no 
 respect a later usage (since even '^ here is not an idle addition),^ 
 but a specially delicate turn of the Hebrew language, in virtue of 
 whicb, when an enumeration is described as reaching its highest 
 point, this point is thus particularly marked (inde a), Ewald, 
 Schulgr. s. 271. — "^ with the inf as a circumscription of the 
 future, and that both with and without pj^Tl' ^^- ^' xxxi. 17." But 
 this also is founded on gross misunderstandings. The inf. dc' 
 pendant form Xt^Xl with ^ is good Hebrew, and does not in any 
 
 T T : 
 
 way stand as a simple circumscription of the future (according to 
 Gesenius, Lehrg. s. 786, ff. Hartmann Ling. Einl. s. 189), and 
 is consequently not to be paralleled with the Aramaic j-»Ai> seq. -^, 
 but stands always emphatically in the proper sense. The p7"i;7 
 embraces the reference of one thing to another, so that it is directed 
 upon it, and hence it stands {a) in the sense to he in the mind. 
 Gen. XV. 22 (12) ; Jos. ii. 5; {h) to he determined to any thing, 
 Num.xxiv. 22 ; Deut. xxxi. 17 ; Is. vi. 13, ix. 4 ; (c) to he ready 
 for something, to be disposed for it, 2 Chr. xxvi. 5 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 
 21. Such is the ancient usage of the phrase, the later introduced 
 the omission of the XVT^-' ^^ which we have nowhere in the Penta- 
 
 T T 
 
 teuch an instance. For the passage, Deut. iv. 2, does not belong 
 to this ; the "^'QIID7 ^"^ ^^ ^^^y ^® most simply construed thus : In 
 
 1 Exactly as in Is. iii. 9. Comp. Hitzig, Com. s. 36. [There seems some confusion 
 here. I can find no instance in Gen. xix. 19 of the infin. ending in n. The word used 
 in Amos. iv. 11 is riDv-W, which verb occurs iu Gen. xix. 21, 25 ; but there, in the for- 
 mer verse, in the regular inf. in Kal with the suffix of the first pers. sing., in the 
 latter in the third pers. singular fut. In fine, it is in Is xiii. 19, and not iii. 9, that the 
 parallel usage to that in Amos occurs. — Tr.] 
 
 2 In the Syr. they merely say jLO^LO— _LD (Hotfm. Gr. Syr. p. 381), iu the Ar. 
 JU_, .*« (Hamacker, Inc. Aiu. Do Memph. expug. p. 60.) 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 171 
 
 the observance of the Law ye shall add nothing thereto, nor take 
 thencefrom/ — " 'j]-^^ with i^Q^ iu place of ^, Dent. iv. 8, xi. 32, 
 xxxi. 5, a transition to the Chal. 0"Tp-" ^^^ ^^^'^ contrary, see only 
 
 T 't: 
 
 such passages as Gen. xliii. 14 ,: Exod. iii. 21. — "The frequent use 
 of the participles with pronomm. separatis, in place of the finite ten- 
 ses." But this indicates a misunderstanding of the meaning of the 
 participial construction, which is distinguished in meaning, as is well 
 known, from the other tenses. — " The ^ as a mark of the accusa- 
 tive — a decisive indication of a later age." But the construction 
 of the Hiphil forms'with ^, which Hartmann cites in illustration of 
 this (s. 603), does not apply here ; comp. Ewald, Kr. Gr, s. 594 ; 
 Hitzig on Is. 142. As little does the combination of ^pj^ with i^. 
 Lev. xix. 18, 34, where '^ stands more emphatically than the simple 
 object: to turn love upon any one (hence appropriately with ^"i^s), 
 as the verb may also be construed with ^. — " The pron. separ. in 
 the nominative with another pronoun for the oblique case, Deut. 
 V. 3." This, however, occurs exactly in the same way, Gen. xxvii. 
 34. — "h as a sign of the nominative, Deut. xxiv. 6." A gram- 
 matical whim in which no thorough philologist now shares ! See 
 Maurer, Comment, z. B. Jos. s. 114. 
 
 After having thus undertaken the analysis of what has in a lin- 
 guistic point of view been advanced against this the most violently 
 assailed book of the Pentateuch, we may safely omit the refutation 
 of what remains. For not only have we here only similar proofs 
 of " a late usage of the language" adduced (Hartmann, s. 667, £f.), 
 but they are even much more mere deaf nuts than the preceding. The 
 most perverted part of these attempts is the treatment of the poeti- 
 cal portions of the Pentateuch (s. 664, fF.), in such a way as pays 
 not the least regard to the nature of poetry and its unusual forms ! 
 The result of the whole is to establish the unity of character of the 
 language of the Pentateuch, and to present this as the principle of 
 the whole subsequent literature. 
 
 § 32. B. — POST-MOSAIC PERIOD. AGE OF DAVID AND SOLOMON. 
 
 The entrance of the Hebrews into Palestine, and the new rela- 
 
 1 In a similar way it appears to me also Is. xliv. 14 is to be construed. 
 
172 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 tions surrounding them there, must have exercised an influence on 
 their language, which must have displayed itself partly in the en- 
 riching of it with new expressions, partly in the rendering obsolete 
 of old ones ; comp. Eichhorn, Einl. I. s. 73, ff. This is apparent 
 in the appellation of many objects of natural history peculiar to 
 Palestine, as well as in the names which arose from the new neces- 
 sities of life and the worship established. Thus there appeared for 
 the f3rst time then the names ^z^i"^^' ^^' ^^'^^ > ^^^^ serpent names, 
 i^Qt^' Hi^p^' '^ii^Q^. Foi' n^Tb^ "Tli^' husbandman, the later 
 usage was -^^^ ; for U^^'^H- sickle, ^^f^ ; f^^' H?;?!!' ^ s'"°' Tt^i* 
 The old names n'lD?^' ^'^i'' t?;2^3' ^^ ancient simple necklace 
 (Exod. XXXV. 22 ; Num. xxxi. 50. Comp. Diod. Sic. III. 45), 
 fell out of use. Other expressions were altered for the most part to 
 denote more precisely the peculiarity of an object, as e. (/r. in place 
 of the simple but easily misunderstood l^ipn, natales sues pro- 
 fiteri (Num. i. 18), the later usage was n^Q' ^^ more strictly "^QD' 
 a7ro'ypd(})eadai,i and still later ^^n'^pn (see on this word Kleinert, 
 lib. d. Aechth. d. Jes. I. 90) ; the standing expression ^q^ HSi^'^^ 
 the Pentateuch remained only in poetry (Ps. xxxv. 13 ; Is. Iviii. 3, 
 5, 10), to which properly this mode of speech belongs, and was 
 superseded by q«|^^, which the ancient language did not know,^ &c. 
 The book of Joshua, which contains records cotemporary with 
 the events, stands most closely allied to the Pentateuch in a lin- 
 guistic respect ; and this holds not only of particular books of the 
 Pentateuch, but of the whole. Such allied words are, e. gr. *^'y, 
 to rebel, ix. 18 ; 'y^, to smite the rear, x. 19 ; nUJi^' burning, an 
 offering, xiii. 1-i ; /T'l'jn^' half, xxi. 25 ; phrases like I'^n^? b^ v^D 
 
 1 Like the Arab. , sa.^=)' ^^- Micbaelis, de censibus Hebr., Comment. A. 1758, 
 
 p. 19. 
 
 2 It is an utter perversion -when Credner, .loel, s. 149, persists in regarding tlie ex- 
 pression of the Pentateuch as the later; for tlie reason alleged against it, that it indicates 
 an abuse of the rites of faith, and consequently belongs to the period when the Prophets 
 admonished the people not to deceive themselves with false conceits, as if all tliat was 
 required of them was summed up in the observance of outward usages, is opposed to 
 Credner's own view. For in this case the expression must have occurred chiefly in the 
 Prophets, with whom it does not occur at all! And why must not the Mosaic law also 
 have set forth and inculcated fasting according to its internal meaning and spiritual re- 
 ference ? 
 
 2 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGK8 OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 173 
 
 rrjn^ xiv. «, 9, i4 ; ^jt^jcA "ip^ri' x^'"- ^^ ; D'^^p^tr ^pt;?' 
 
 viii. 3], comp. Deut. xxvii. C ;^ "the sand which is on the shore of 
 the sea," xi. 4, as in Genesis (comp. Ewald, Compos, d. Gen. s. 
 286), and even the construction of periods, as iv. G, fiF., 21, ff., 
 compared with Exod. xii. 25 — 27. Some words, however, are 
 in this book extended in sense ; thus j-\'^"]t2Ji>5 already occurs in 
 the wider sense oi plains, as opposed to -^pji-y, x. 40, whilst in the 
 Pentateuch it denotes only the foot of a hill ; so also the proverbial 
 expression, " No dog points its tongue against Israel," Exod. xi. 
 1,^ occurs in Joshua x. 21, without 2^^, dog ; such modes of 
 speech are usually shortened in progress of time,^ a remark which 
 Maurer has overlooked, and so has proposed an arbitrary emendation 
 of the text. (Comment, s. 113.) 
 
 From the influence so beneficially exerted by the Pentateuch 
 upon the style of the book of Joshua, we can account for the great 
 correctness of the latter ; it has a character of extraordinary fluency 
 and ease. For the instances which have been adduced of later and 
 corrupt style, are not such.* The Q^ji'^^, in place of Cj]]]-!^) 
 xxiii. 15, is in reality the original regular formation, and may 
 consequently be properly treated as an Archaism when it occurs in 
 later writers ; ijT')^, in place of ^_fr|^, xiv. 12 (xxii, 19 has nothing 
 to do with this) is, as a rarity, to be found even in the oldest 
 books, e.gr., Lev. xv. 18, 24, it is only the frequent and regular 
 exchange of the two forms that belongs to the later period. Still 
 less to the point is the post-fixing of the numeral, which both 
 Gesenius (Lehrg., s. G95), and even Ewald. Krit. Gr. s. G28, ad- 
 duce as identifying the language of the book of Joshua with that 
 of a later age. It is true that we have belonging to the later such 
 a phrase as ^rj'i^t!.'' ili^i^ ^^^ three ells {e.g)\ 2 Chron. vi. 13), but 
 
 1 Comp. also the Arab. ^l_X,^, a stone, a monument, in the Himyaritic dialect. 
 
 Comp. Lebid. Moall. 2. Peiper de Leb. Moall. p 73. 
 
 2 On the expression iri'-J y"^!-; see Schultens ad Prov. p. 250, sq. Also in Latin they 
 said, though in a good sense, acuere linguam (exercitatione dicendi) Cic. Brut. 97, and 
 for that also procedere linguam, de Orat. III. 30. 
 
 3 Just like the Latin gnomes forluna fortes (sc. adjuvat) Cic. do fin. 3, 4, 16, me- 
 hercle currentem (sc. incitas) ad Qu. fr. II. 15, sus Minervam (sc. docet) Acadd. I. 4, 
 cf. Beier ad Cic. de Offic. III. 33, 116. 
 
 4 Maurer Lib. cit. s. XVIIL, Hirzel, De Chald. Bibl. indole, p. 7, De Wette, Einl. 
 8. 219. 
 
174 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 such occur in Joshua only in stating the sum of a number as xii. 
 ^^' int^"} Q*'U?V^ Q'';3^?2~^3' " ^^^^ ^^^ °^ ^^'^ kings amounted 
 to thirty-one," which could not be otherwise expressed. Whether 
 (3^2 be a later word, cannot he determined from its reappearing in 
 very late writings ; as respects its formation and derivation, it is 
 good Hebrew, ^'i^t?!!' ^' '^' ^> ^^^^ ^^^ mean, as has been assumed, 
 to he prosperous, but to act ivisehj. VD^DH' ^^^- ^' '^ ^"^^ ^ ^^'•^ 
 but the most ancient form, Ewald, s. 422. The article, as a rela- 
 tive, X. 24, stands so in other ancient writings; see Ivleinert lib. die 
 Aechth. d. Jes. s. 219. 
 
 In the modes of expression used in this book there is much that 
 is peculiar and antique, and which consequently illustrates still 
 more the peculiar character of the language of its age ; such as the 
 old form ^^^^n ^' ^^ (^^® °^ '^^^^ Ewald, s. 265 ; Hirzel 1 cit.), 
 elsewhere used only by the poets, 'jVv2J*'i^"1> xxi. 10, Ewald, s. 496 ; 
 the verbs '^*)j;^^rf' i^- ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^'^ o^ a journey, and *7»^^py, ix. 
 12, to provide food; the expression XTMh ^''■•^k, iii. 15, iv. 18, with 
 which latter passage may be compared that in Isa. viii. 7, probably 
 borrowed from it. Not seldom also the language of this book has 
 what has been but too little noticed, o, poetic character, such as is 
 to be found only in such elevated prose as occurs in the Pentateuch. 
 Under this may be ranked the following : Vli;n~7t^ V^^l P'^'^ 
 j-(|-f]:^-^^«^, i. 9, and similar turns in i. 6, 18, viii. 1, x. 25 ;^ 
 D^nT;^''^ n^D2' y^^^^' ^®^^' ^^^ ^^■■> ^^' ^ (comp. Gen. xv. 12 ; 
 Exod. xxiii. 27) ; V")bin "^Ity''"^^ ^ib3' "• ^ (comp. Exod. xv. 
 15), a bold description of terror; in prose elsewhere "x^l means 
 to be dispersed, 1 Sam. xiv. 16 ; the Paronomasia of 'j'^-^^ and ^-^i^, 
 iii. ] 1, 18 ; ^pjn^ iv. 18, comp. Job xviii. 14 ; often the expres- 
 sion is very concise, and hence obscure as v. 9, ]-\g"^n '^/Ti^^ DVH 
 D^-i^J^n D":i^'P "^^^ ^' ^^' ^^■'l^^ D« nri« ^An- So also the 
 Jl'i'nQitDn Wi^JH' vi= 9, is to be understood, where Maurer and 
 others prefer without reason the simpler Keri i^pjri. Genuinely 
 
 1 Comp. the altogether similar »XX^i'j ^^\ i^J^i' ^. Turafu Moall, vs. 2. 
 Auirulk. Moull. 3. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 175 
 
 poetic is the ancient formula of cursing, vi. 2G, with which may 
 be compared h^ter similar utterances, such as e. gr., 1 Sam. xiv. 24. 
 Peculiar also to this time, and here for tlie first time apparent, are 
 certain military terms, the rise of which is easily explained, by the 
 warlike circumstances of that epoch. To this belong the very fre- 
 quently occurring Qi^^i^n ^"^^ D'^iJ /H' f'H'ther, '^iipf 'i'^'i^;i, warlike 
 troops, i. 15. vi. 1, viii, 3, x. 7 •} for this the Pentateuch uses the 
 circumlocution ^^^ ^^!iV-^5> Num. i. 3, 22, 26, 28, xxvi. 2, 
 
 &c. ; the word ^'iTi^, viii. 18, 2-6, an ancient, probably foreign, 
 weapon (either a lance or javelin), in place of which other weapons 
 and names were used later, &c. 
 
 This epoch, however, was too warhke in its character, and that 
 immediately succeeding it had too little of a theocratic character, 
 for literary efforts to flourish. It was during it that the poetic 
 period which soon after followed, and which reached its highest 
 point of excellence in the age of David and Solomon, was prepar- 
 ing. Several circumstances conspired to give this such an impulse 
 as it never again experienced. For one thing, the age of heroes 
 and heroic deeds had passed ; a milder state of things had suc- 
 ceeded, and such as was favourable for the appearance of an era of 
 song. This, however, would never have taken the direction it did 
 — the poetry would have been merely secular, and would have had 
 nothing to do with the service of the Theocracy, had not a newly- 
 awakened life arisen in the midst of it : of this life, of the deeply 
 religious character of this period, the fulness and the wealth is its 
 poetry. The principal care of David and Solomon was the worship 
 of God, and even among the priests there were singers, and we 
 find families of singers constituted.- The Schools of the Prophets 
 founded by Samuel during this period were also, at least in part, 
 of service to poetry : with song and instrumental music they re- 
 cited their sacred hymns. (1 Sam. x. 5 ; xix. 19, 20.)^ 
 
 The simple and elevated poetry of the Pentateuch is excelled by 
 
 X Thus at a later period in the heroic age, tlie h'-'j^ nis^ came to mean a hero— the 
 
 t>o J^AA9 of the Aiabs — and this again passed at a later period into a laxer use. Comp. 
 Gesenius Thes., p. 262. 
 
 2 See the excellent remarks of Movers in his Krit. Untersuch, iib d. Bibl. Chrou. s. 
 109, ff., and 279, ff. 
 
 a See Tholuck's Lit. Anz., 1831. No. 5, s. 73 ff. 
 
HISTORY OF THE 
 
 the war-song of Deborah (Judges v.), uudoubtedly the oldest of 
 this period ; but the transition from this period to that of David 
 in a linguistic respect is furnished by the profoundly interesting 
 book of Job. There is no mistaking the influence which this has 
 exerted upon the subsequent poetry. It appears especially in 
 the Proverbs and the Psalms, in the former chiefly from the lan- 
 guage, in the latter from the thoughts. i This might lead to the 
 supposition that the hook of Job is itself the one which imitates, 
 and consequently that it is of later date. But, not to insist upon 
 other reasons, which will be stated in their proper place, there are 
 linguistic grounds against this : 1 . The style has throughout not 
 the fluent, rounded, and polished character of the later poetry ; on 
 the contrary, it is as abrupt and bold in form as the earlier and 
 older poetic pieces of the Pentateuch : 2. This book contains a 
 multitude of expressions and turns entirely its own, the peculiarity 
 of which conducts us to a period when the language must have 
 been handled quite independently ; but this is not the character of 
 the later period which imitates the older models. Thus, e.gr., 
 pj-^j-^ (Pual), iii. 2; f^ appended to the verb, iii. 13 ; V^y^, nest- 
 ling, iv. 12 ; xxvi. 14, (this word does not occur thus even in any 
 of the dialects) ; 'rh'nPi^ 'V- ^^ '> U^il3' v. 14 ; n73' ^'* ^^ > ^^^* 
 2 ; \^^5 constantly in Job, elsewhere equally constantly p^^ and 
 J3V3> the former, however, is the original; '^)'r^'QS, wealth, xxxv'i. 19; 
 V-)?|, to sip, XV. 8 ; ^p^j xxxvi. 4 ; pp "yyi), to set forward, 
 xxxviii. 10; 'Qi'2'n^ ^^ ^^^ tropical sense, xxxiv. 17; xl. 13, &c. 
 3. There is more of the Aramaic usage than in the later period, in 
 which a purer Hebrew occurs. In this respect Job's language 
 stands on a par with that of Judges v., see on it § 30, comp. also 
 § 29. Under this head may be ranked the following: — p^^, a 
 
 very frequent plural, 'fy"^^'^ (h-*-*'), viii. 8; qi-^ for Qi<["\. xxxix. 
 
 9 ;- n"li?2' '^'^' xxxvi. 22; "i^pp for Y^jp, xviii. 1 ; -fp^t!?' ?^-». 
 xvi. 19 (comp. Gen. xxxi. 47, &c.'^) These Aramaisms must be 
 
 1 See the collection of analogies iu Michaelis, Einl. I., 92, If. Gesenius, Gesch., s. 
 33, ff. Rosenmiiller, Sciioll. in Job, p. 32, sq. 
 
 2 See more such defective forms iuMicbaelis, 1. cit., s. 109. 
 
 3 The collections of Bernstein, Annal. v. Keil u. Tzschirner I. 3, s. 49, ff. Gesenius, 
 Gesch., s. 34, ff. stand very much in need of being sifted, as in them sometimes good 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1 ' ' 
 
 explained in the same way a's the peculiarities first named ; the 
 latter are illustrated chiefly from the Arabic as the dialect contain- 
 ing the most copious store of words, and in like manner must the 
 former from the Aramaic ; but to conclude hence either that the one 
 is the product of Arabic authorship,^ or is drawn from an Arabic 
 original, or that the other belongs to a later period, would be one- 
 sided and erroneous. " The more elevated the poetry which a book 
 contains, and the older it is," as Michaelis justly remarks, lib. cit., 
 s. 107, " the more frequently will this be the case; consequently 
 in Job, where both these reasons unite, it is very common." In 
 support of this may be adduced the circumstance, hitherto too much 
 overlooked, that these Aramaisms of the book of Jub are exactly 
 such as essentially differ from the degenerate character of the later 
 Aramaic, and thereby prove its antiquity and originality. Thus 
 T^n^ occurs in its strong sense oi skilful, iii. 8, equipped, xv. 23, 
 whilst in the Aramaic, on the otlier hand, we find it quite weakened 
 (like /xeWcov followed by the infin.,) Hoffmann Gr. Syr. p. 342, 
 my Comment, on Daniel, s. 114 ; ~'7?2 ^^ ^^^ original distinction 
 from ■^i^'ry ^^^® former in the bad, the latter in the good sense {lo 
 tattle — to discourse), viii. 2,. exactly as in Gen. xxi. 7; instead of 
 the later niT^TS, {suddenly, see my Comment., s. 307, ff.) Job 
 says more emphatically Q'i^^'^^, xv. 21. *7*(^ ^'^ without human 
 agency, xxxiv. 20, more feebly the later t^ DCi«^3,' ^^"- "^"i- ^^' 
 and 'jii'i^ ^1^ *ir], Dan. ii. 34, 35 (see my remarks on these pas- 
 sages.) This book also gave rise to later sentences, as e. yr. 
 (of God), who saith to him, What doest thou? (ix. 12, xxi. 
 22), comp. 2 Sara. xvi. \^ ; Is. xlv. 9; Dan. iv. 32; Eccl. 
 viii. 4. 
 
 More cultivated and more purely grounded in the Hebrew appears 
 the poetry of the age of David ; the language is here classically pure, 
 the parallelism more carefully attended to, the expression less at vari- 
 ance with the form. By far the greater number of the Psalms belong- 
 
 Hebrew is adduced for an Aramaism, and sometimes tbings are adduced tbat have no 
 reference to the subject [e. gr., Tij'J for to let/in discourse.) 
 
 1 As Kromayer, de usu ling. Arabicae in addiseenda Ebraea, and others do. The hypo- 
 thesis of Arabic ingredients has been adopted by Jerome (Jobum cum Arabica lingua 
 plurimam habere societatem. Praef. in Daniel, Schultens, Praef. Comm. in Job., W^ahl, 
 Allg. Gesch. d. raorgenh Sprachen, s. 428, Ilgen, Jobi ant. carm. Hebr, natura et virtus, 
 p. 18 sq., &e. 
 
 M 
 
178 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 ing to this period (on those written during the captivity see under) 
 are written in an easy and flowing style ; the simple object, the inar- 
 tificial outpouring of the heart to God in prayer, brought with it 
 that more facile lyric strain which belongs to the language of these 
 psalms ; but especially the liturgic intention of them had this 
 effect, for it was needful on this account to take great care in re- 
 spect of the expression lest they should fail of being a common 
 good to the multitude. " In this moderation of sentiment," as 
 Cramer remarks not badly, Psalmen IV. s. 285, " the great simpli- 
 city and naturalness of the style of the Psalm has its basis, which 
 almost throughout appears to be rather western than oriental, and 
 never elevates itself to the boldness, or, if a stronger expression be 
 desired, to the noble temerity which astonishes us in other poetical 
 parts of Scripture, as in Moses, Job, and Isaiah. — David is satis- 
 fied when all his words are noble, when they are emphatic enough 
 and suited to his sentiments ; his language is not without its orna- 
 ture ; but the colours are rather lively and light than strong and 
 striking." Only now and then we find a tendency towards earlier 
 and unusual expressions, as e. gr. the ^ praef., as in the Song 
 of Deborah, so also in certain Songs of David (Ps. cxxii., cxxiv.) 
 In general, however, marked Aramaisms are here great rarities, as 
 Ps. ii. 12, -^^; xvi, G, ^^^ *^0\2J (delectari aliqua re, comp. Dan. 
 iv. 24), instead of the Heb. -^r) ^i'^J^^ltO'^ ' I^'- ^' ^n"l!J3'^ ' \^\\\. 4 ; 
 cxliv. 4, nS\2;, instead of 7^j-f ; cxxiv. 3, 4, 5. if^, an ancient 
 form used emphatically,^ which reminds of the Chald. "['i'7^ ; 
 cxxxix. 8, pp2 for HT'i^- ^ certain artificialness is found in the 
 alphabetical form of some Psalms ; still the freedom which the poets 
 allow themselves in respect of this shows how little they were de- 
 pendent upon it (see De Wette, Psalm Einl. s. 65, fF.) In the 
 progressive rythm, also so beautifully exhibited in some Psalms 
 (see e. gr. Ps. cxxi.) there is an advance as respects the cultiva- 
 tion of the form (De Wette, s. 08, fF.) 
 
 To the same category belong the writings also of Solomon. As 
 under David the practical want, that of a temple-poetry, was satis- 
 fied, so under and through Solomon, poetry received a new culture, 
 
 1 Clarisse, on this passage, says justly: "Forma Laec— veliemeutein, quo poetae 
 animus commovebotur, affectum ostendit. 
 
 3 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1 70 
 
 which called forth new kinds of it ; corresponding to the mutual rela- 
 tions of the two rulers, theformer of whom devoted himself chiefly to 
 the inner essence, the latter to the outward form and significance of 
 the Theocracy. Solomon's far-famed wisdom appears chiefly in his 
 poetical performances ; to him especially is ascribed the composition 
 of Maschals and larger poems/ ] Chron. v. 12. The progress of 
 poetry is thereby distinctly indicated, for there is not only the ces- 
 sation of the ancient, original, and close conjunction of the singer 
 and poet, but also the cultivation of a new kind of poetry. In the 
 writings of Solomon (Proverbs and Canticles) there is found on this 
 account a very distinctly pronounced character; which, especially 
 in a linguistic respect, is peculiar and noticeable. In this both the 
 works of Solomon which we possess strikingly agree, whilst there 
 Is much that is clearly peculiar to each, the pieces as respects their 
 subject being very different. In the latter respect the following 
 are especially to be noticed in the Proverbs : — "^DIT^' ^^ applied to 
 wisdom in its negative reference to the sins of men, which are by it 
 denounced (comp. i. 2, iv. 13, vi. 23, xxiii. 23) ; the favourite expres- 
 sion np7 (traditional) doctrine, i. 5, iv. 2, vii. 21, 23, ix. 9. — The 
 form n*"!"), Crown i. 9, iv. 9, the later word for this (at least 
 one used in a similar sense) is n"^'7 and ^^y^ ; the form and the ex- 
 pression pi^'^'in' ^^'- ^^' ^^- ^'5 ' ^^^ ni^'^'in' '• '^^ (^'^^ ^^^^ latter 
 
 the later usage is the corrupt JTiQH, Ez. vii. 1 6) — ili^Dn^' ^^' ^ ^» 
 14, vi. 14, xvi. 28, xxiii. 33 ; elsewhere only once in the oldest 
 poetry, Deut. xxxii. 20. — V^'^pT ^^ ^.he tropical sense of diligent 
 (comp. h^vi) only in the Proverbs. In like manner, the words ex- 
 pressive of the opposite conception, 7^j^, n^!^i^' n^72Ji^ — I^S' t'lT'^' 
 to deviate, perverted, ii. 14, iii. 21, 32, iv. 21, xiv. 2 (elsewhere only 
 once, Is. XXX. 12.) — ^'ng, in the older usage of the Pentateuch, 
 almost throughout employed in the primitive physical signification 
 of to uncover, is in Proverbs with equal constancy used in the 
 
 1 The "iia is used for longer and continuous poetical compositions, and is distin- 
 guished tbus not only from the "i'tht^, or a song to be accompanied by instruments, but 
 also from the Vitt, as a rfiV/)/m ferfire, ( -^^.^ 3a.5 ^^ '^'^^ ^^ Arabs explain their 
 
 ^J from a longer poem. "I'^ffl -= Sfk^kw pi'op. a row, then a section (of the Oorau.) 
 
 M 2 
 
ISO HISTORY OF THE 
 
 transferred sense of to reject, to neglect, i. 25, iv. 15, viii. 33, 
 xiii. 8, XV. o'i. — ni52?* ^^ commit a fault, in the Pentateuch spa- 
 
 T T 
 
 cially used in reference to adultery, in the Proverbs always in a wider 
 acceptation. The phrase 'j*|-y^ Jl^ti?' *'0 excite a quarrel, vi. 14, 
 
 19, xvi. 28; "j"!-!^ Trs\-> ^^ *^^® same sense, xv. 18, xxviii. 25, 
 xxviii. 22. In the substantive, the peculiar variety of the plural 
 formation is to be noted : D*»2"TD' Q^i1"T?2' D"^i^"TD» comp. Ewald, 
 Gram, d. Heb. Spr. s. 200, 2te Ausg. The phrase, "the lamp, the 
 lightof any oneis extinguished," for " he perishes," xiii. 9, xx. 20, 
 xxxi. 18. — '^ "^Dll' i^'^cors, vi. 32, vii. 7, also vecordia, x. 21. — 
 D^iS ti^PT' ^^ harden the face, to assume a daring mien, vii. 13, 
 xxi. 29. — U}^^?^, in the absolute sense, x. 5, xiv. 35, xvii. 2, xix. 26, 
 
 &c.--'r»^r)n5 to be niggard, xi. 24, xxi. 26. — ni?"^^1i^ 1J^' ^^^* ^^' 
 instead of the usual j;;j-)3 or J^;)"^^, for which also later but cor- 
 rupt came simply, Hi^^Il'^i^' Jerra. xlix. 19. — n3i??2' like the Arab. 
 XJjuo, design, xvi. 4. — ^^iLHIl' ^^ ^^^^ ^^^ with one, xvii. 14, 
 xviii; 1, XX. 3. — ^3 Vp]r|, to strike hands, for the sake of sup- 
 port =^«^y (likewise very common), see vi. 1, xi. 15, xvii. 18, 
 xxii. 20. — r*^?!^^!!^^' strokes, xviii. 6, xix. 29. — Dn^n?2' j'^'^^®'^' 
 xviii. 8, "xxvi. 22 ; later ]i'i3"TJ^^j Jerm. li. 34 ; Lam. iv. 5. — 
 Tib fl^l' a constant guttur, xix. 13, xxvii. 15. — nS*)^ 'J'iUJ'^i^ ^'^^ 
 '^T\ ^'^t^' w£dia nox, the thickest darkness, vii. 9, xx. 20. So 
 with equal peculiarity the opposite idea, Q"iin I'iDD' i^id^ay, iv. 
 18. — Q't^'itij, rebels (qui animum commutarunt), xxiv. 21. — 
 V-Ci^ ^^, tempore opportuno, XXV. 11. — P"^^? tell-tale, xvi. 28, 
 xxvi. 20. — p25' to pamper, xxix. 21. — The aira^ \ey. •^^, xxxi. 4, 
 desiderium} — n^"^~^DUJ' liumble, xvi. 19, xxix. 23. — 'Qr\'r\^ ^^'^~ 
 quently in the tropical sense, as vi. 14, xii. 20, xiv. 22. — Dt2) tTOn 
 rrirr^ (to commit treason against the name of Jehovah) an abbre- 
 viated expression in place of the ancient ^1^2^^ ^^toi' Exod. xx. 
 
 1 This word, regularly formed from n"S, is explainable from the particular linguistic 
 usage of the Proverbs, and there is not the least need for thinking of a correction of it 
 (see GeseniuB, TLes., p. 37, 78; Kbster, Krlauter, s. 19.3.) 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THK OLD TESTAMENT. 181 
 
 7, and poetical for the prosaic ';^')r\'^ ^^2) hhtl' Lev. xix. 12.^ — 
 "T'^Sn ^"d T^Q> forsaken of his friends, left to himself, xviii. 1, 
 xix 4. 
 
 In Canticles also many peculiarities occur,^ even more so than 
 in the Proverbs, which is to be explained from the singularity of 
 its subject, and the more poetical and ornamented treatment it re- 
 ceives. In this poem, we find the use of the ^ praef., to the en- 
 tire exclusion of the *^\ij^, and in altogether peculiar combinations, 
 as in the constant 'nri^. But all poetical pieces exbibit the tendency 
 to avoid this prosaic "^^jj^, and it is only an indication of the higher 
 poetic form when we find it avoided in the Canticles. 3 Peculiar 
 likewise is the often used n'^^1 (see Ewald, s. 2-37, 2te Ausg.), 
 for which other writers use jn^^'^, or sometimes also ^^"^ (Ps. 
 xlv. 15); the expression "^Q^y, a young one, ii. 9, 17, &c , -^Q^t 
 the Alhenna of the Arabs, i. 14, iv. 13, vii. 12. D'^tO'^ni' '• 
 17 ; V-Qp, to spring, to skip, ii. 8 (see Ewald Comment., s. 82) ; 
 inp' winter, ii. 11 ; I1?2p' blossom, ii. 13, 15, vii. 12. -)2Ll^» 
 organ of speech, the mouth, iv. 3, &;c. Also the peculiar phrases 
 X^ tlJT'il' ^^ ^'e down, used of animals, iv. I, vi. 5, for which 
 elsewhere we have p^^, Exod. x. 14. — "Ti^--ti;t:3J>723' scarcely had 
 I— until, iii. 4, quite an unusual construction, and as daring as 
 the combination *7^2^ ^ l^^DD (Deut. xii. 10), iv. 1, 3, vi. 4. 
 
 It must not be overlooked here, that between both books there 
 is a remarkable analogy of usage which, considering the difference 
 of the subjects, and the limited exteat of the Canticles, is the more 
 to be noticed. It will not do to take up these peculiarities apart 
 and one sidedly, as is often done; they must rather be regarded as 
 marking a special Solomonic usage. For we cannot regard the 
 analogies as accidental, as they are alone of their kind and too 
 numerous ; and imitation* on either side is excluded by the inde- 
 
 1 In exactly tbe same way the AialiS used their ^J-^^ seusu malo, cf. Freytag, 
 
 s. V. 
 
 2 Comp Ewald, Hohelied Salomo's, s. 10, ft". 
 
 3 From exactly the same circumstances are we to explain the altogether aualagous 
 ease that Jeremiah employs the lu praef. only iu Lamentations (ii. 18, iv. 9), and Jiowhere 
 else. 
 
 4 .As is certainly tho I'lisf with J'.cclesiastcs ; see under. 
 
182 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 pendaut dignity of the poetry in both. Specially allied are the 
 figures, Cant. vi. 4, 11, and Prov. vii. 23, 2G ; Cant. vii. 6 ; Prov. 
 vi. 25. Even in expressions they are sometimes parallel to each 
 other ; comp. Prov. v. 3, j-j-^^ "^tODto HwDbil JlSi' ^^^ Cant, 
 iv. Jl, 'n'^ii'inct} (IjOt^D HDi'^ where also the expression ]-)qj 
 is to be noticed, which occurs thus also in Prov. xxvi. 13, else- 
 where more fully Q'^Qt^^ ilQ!)' P^^- ^'^- ^ 1 '> pT\i?' street instead of 
 n"in")' comp. Prov. vii. 8 ; Cant. iii. 2 ; later only in the Aramaic. 
 Genuinely Solomonic are the combinations of'j>'|^2p>i D'^TTli^ "Tb' 
 Prov. vii. 17 ; Cant. iv. 14. The phrase Q's^ty nil' ^*^ satiate one- 
 
 X T 
 
 self with love, Prov. vii. 18, reminds us entirely of Q'^Ti'^ 13\2J) to 
 drink abundantly of love, Cant. v. 1, particularly from the peculiar 
 usage of the plural of '-y^'^ (see thereon Ewald, s. 225, 2te Ausg.) 
 In the same sense 'y^^x^ ^^ used Prov. xxvi. 21, and Cant. i. 5 ; also 
 the ]Tip*ittJi, Cant. i. 2, is found besides only in Prov. xxvii. 6. Of 
 D'^Sirj' Cant. ii. 9, the roofrr-^j-^ occurs Prov. xii. 27. Of import- 
 ance also are the same tropical usage of p^^ of the conjugal relation, 
 Prov. v. 16 ; Cant. iv. 15 ; "rTj-j, palate, used metonymically of speech. 
 Cant. v. 16, Prov. viii. 7 ; '^.TH^ i^ ^ ^^^^^ sense, Prov. vi. 3 ; Cant, 
 vi. 5. The word ^7)7, broach, is used only by Solomon, Prov. xxv. 
 C ; Cant. vii. 2 ; already Hosea has for it the form n^'^ji' ^"- l^* 
 
 X t V 
 
 Very close is the resemblance of the phrases for wine softly gliding 
 down. Cant. vii. 10 [9], tD'TitiJ"'?;^^ TT^irf' ^^^ Prov. xxiii. 31, 
 D"^"1t2J'^?2^ "^yHfT^- Worthy of notice also is the usage of 'j-'ipj (for 
 which Job also has 'j'^^, xx. 10) ; the common expression for "^t^j^ 
 in Proverbs (i. 13, iii. 9, vi. 31, xii. 27, xxviii. 22, xxx. 16), also 
 Cant. viii. 7 ; later there came into use in place of it the plural D"^Jin 
 (Ez. xxvii. 33), comp. ops, opes. Cant. viii. 0, we have " Bear me as 
 a signet ring on thy breast, like a signet ring on thy arm," for keep 
 me as the most precious treasure ; and exactly the same expression 
 is found (retaining even the peculiar 71^7-7^?) Prov. iii. 3, vi. 21, 
 vii. 3. 
 
 1 The meaning here is also in both cases the same; the alhision is to sweetness of 
 speech ; comp. Cant. ii. 14, v. 13, 16. Others erroneously explain it of kisses (v. Kooteu, 
 Diipke.) 
 
 2 Umbreit quite erroneously understands this of an amulet or talisman (on Pr. s. 23) ; 
 such a figure could hardly have been borrowed from this, as it was viewed by the Hebrews 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 188 
 
 Whilst the poetical books now before us thus present themselves 
 as having, each in its own kind, peculiar lioguistic phenomena, it 
 must nevertheless, on the other hand, be acknowledged that, as 
 already intimated, these three chief classes, the book of Job, the 
 Davidic poems, and the Solomonic, again accord in many things, 
 whereby they are proved to belong to one common period. The 
 Lexicons have taken but too little notice of the linguistic trei:sures 
 of this period, and hence a survey of the principal of these may 
 be here given. — The plurals ^^?2^H' ^^^^ ^^m of Wisdom, and 
 nii^nn ^^'^ found only in Job, Psalms, and Proverbs.^ — r)ro"ii^' 
 instruction, admonition, very frequently. — ^^2 ^^^ i^'^SH' fountains, 
 in the tropical sense especially Psalms and Proverbs. — "^nUJ ^^^ 
 ^-^-rj, eagerly to seek,^ Job, Psalms, and Proverbs. — iJiQ^ the door, 
 often in the Psalms and Proverbs, later it occurs once, but in a dif- 
 ferent sense, Ez. xlv. 20. — rT'tJ^^ri' '■^^^ ^^'^^ welfare of the wise 
 and good (allied to ^\2Ji), comp. Bernstein, Anal. 1. c. s. 64, ff. 
 Umbreit, Spriichw. s. LIII. — nD3» comp. Prov. ii. 22, xv. 25 ; 
 Ps. lii. 7. Elsewhere instead of this the allied form fy^^ is in 
 use. Very common are q^^ and its derivatives Qivi- Di^i' ^^'^^ 
 which also is to be joined the proper name ^^^3 in the book of 
 
 • Ti T 
 
 Ruth (a name in use also in the Arabic, Schultens, Monum. p. 12.) 
 — D?2n UJ"^^ ^cry often in the Psalms and Proverbs, comp. Um- 
 
 T T • 
 
 breit 1. cit. 8, s. 41. — nSt?:^ often in the same ; at a later period it 
 
 in tbe light of a hflatben usage, comp. Is. iii. 20. On this ground even Miibammed for- 
 bade some at least of tbe amulets used before bis time (see e. <jr. Amrulkeis Moall. v. 14, 
 ibiq. Hengstenberg, p. 35), comp. Scbroeder de vestitu mulierum Heb. p. 175, Freytag, 
 Lex. Arab. 1. 199. To tbis rendering tbe passage iu Cant, is clearly opposed in wbicb a 
 parallel is evidently constructed, and even Prov. vii. 3 itself, wliere tbe Tjiri>a^S-by can 
 be understood only of a signet I'ing. Comp. also Genes, xxxviii. 8 ; Jer. xxxi. 33. 
 
 1 Tbese are tbe stromjest abstract forms of tbe language; see Ewald, Kr. Gr. s. 327. 
 There seems no ground, then, for Ewald's notion (Gr. s. 212, ff., 2te Ausg.) that tbis pS 
 is to he viewed as a variety of tbe singular-ending ni; a notion to wbicb tbe context of 
 r'lsian, Ps. xlix. 4, and passages such as Prov. xxiv. 7, are quite opposed. Ewald's ex- 
 planation of tbe latter paragraph is unsatisfactory. 
 
 ^ Some, as even Umbreit, Spriiche, s. 12, incorrectly derive this from 'ih'iU, tbe dawn, 
 consequently " to seek something in tbe twilight" (sic !) It is an incorrect assumption 
 that no trace of the meaning assigned to this word is to be found in the dialects (even 
 Winer falls into tbis, Lex. p. 967.) Tbe ground meaning is found in the Arabic 
 
 ^M' P''0P- ^° split, to portion, hence, metonymically, strictly to examine ; comp. 
 J • 
 liodiger, Glossar. ad Loemanni Fab. p. 27, 
 
l^A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 comes into use from imitation of the earlier iu Jeremiah. — H'^o;! 
 D'^lfS ^^^ D^n ''''H' '-o breathe out lies, violence, &c., comp. Prov. 
 vi. 19, ix. [xix. ?] 5, xiv. 5, Ps. xlvii. [xxvii.] 12. — ^^'^, to 
 bind, only in Prov. vi. 21, Job xxxi. 36. — J-\"iti,% a showy, meretri- 
 cious dress, Prov. vii. 10 ; Ps. Ixxiii. G. — i^D^, the full moon, Prov. 
 vii. 20 ; Ps. Ixxxi. 4. — n^l^ri' trouble, only Psalms and Proverbs. 
 — -^.fg, to be beneficent, literal. — "^J?^, stupidus, Psalms and Pro- 
 verbs. — 'j'^'ry^^, Job xxvi. 6, xxxi. 12; Prov. xv. 11 (comp. xxvii. 
 20.) — ?13^, Prov. xvi. 26. — W^i^, Job xxxiii. 7. — r\'^3to?!3' opinio, 
 consilium, Prov. xviii. 11 ; Ps. Ixxiii. 7. — '2'p^' the consequence, re- 
 ward, Prov. xxi. 4 ; Ps. xix. 12. — -y^g, to decay, Proverbs and Job. 
 — /lit!?' tbe roaring lion, Job and Proverbs. — 'j*)'^, to conquer, Prov. 
 xxix. 6; Ps. Ixxviii. 65. — D'^DDn- Prov. xxix. 13. 'n'^jr) in the 
 Psalms. — pho and h^D^ in Job and Proverbs. Even entire 
 phrases are analogous, such as ;^'^^*\ ^^ ^'^, Prov. xvi. 3 ; Ps. xxii. 
 9, xxxvii. 5 ; riiri "^^^^ n^^n ^^' ^^' ^"- 10 ; and n^i^^:" iih 
 V)^ p"'"T5i7) Prov. xii. 21. In exact accordance with this is the cha- 
 racter of Canticles, where such analogies are to be found abun- 
 dantly ; e. gr. the use of QilUJ"!^ as an adverb. Cant. i. 4 ; Ps. Ixxv. 3. 
 — 7il' "^^^'b. denomin. from ^yr\, Ps. xx. 6 ; Cant. v. 1 1, vi. 4, 10. 
 — 131' Job xvii. 13 ; Cant. ii. 5 ; HT^Dl' Cant. iii. 10, cU. Jobxli. 
 22. fjf^, to look, in Canticles and Job ; in the latter especially, lo 
 spy out -^ y^y to take heart, courage, Job xi. 12 ; so also ^^l'^' 
 Cant. iv. 9 (comp. Dopke, Com. s. 140), &c. 
 
 From the adduced relations it must be abundantly clear why 
 in the Proverbs, as well as in Psalms, such harsh Aramaisms as 
 
 1 In the Pentateuch this word is used in a narrower and more definite sense, Exod. 
 xxiii. 8; Deut. xvi. 19. The word means in general to smooth, = p^^lin, and hence to 
 pervert, corrupt. The ground-meaning appears most Prov. xix. 3, and xiii. 6, which latter 
 passage is to be translated : ungodliness smooths sin, i.e. makes it easy. The Arahic 
 
 t tV^ is instructive here; its meanings tlius hang together; I, to smooth or polish 
 (to rub something with oil) ; 2, intrans. to glide over; 3, to go off", to hasten on before. 
 
 2 The qia of Genesis (xli. 6, 23, 27), in the sense of <o singe, and the E]S'i of Isaiah 
 (liv. 8). to be sour (see Hitzig, Comment, s. 581), stand connected with tliis word. The 
 ground meaning is to press, to squeeze, to be sharply directed on anything, as the Arabic 
 
 forms ^__, /^, ^__,Ai7.ii ^__ iUlL, teach. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 185 
 
 occur in the preceding book of Job are avoided ; such are to be re- 
 garded as exceptions here in the strictest sense of the word {e. gr. 
 V. 2, xxxi. 2, 3, corap. Hirzel, 1. cit., p. 9.) On the other 
 hand. Canticles contain somewhat more of these ; e. gr. i^i^jj, "^y^ 
 for >T^^, ii. 13 ; fyyy^^ for ttj'i'^^, i. 17 ; -^^ij for -^^j^. But we may 
 safely ascribe this to the more highly poetical character of this 
 book, which brings it nearer to the bolder style of Job. It is also 
 to be observed that the Aramaic tinge here is not the later and cor- 
 rupt, but (exactly as in Job) that which constitutes the effective 
 and powerful element in poetry. Thus n^7\I?' '• "^j stands not for 
 
 the simple iii order that not perhaps, like the (iiD-^J in Syriac, 
 but in its ground-meaning for why 1 So the irj^y does not form 
 a mere paraphrase of the possess, pron., but is always emphatic — 
 mine own, &c. Comp. the admirable remarks of Ewald, Comment. 
 s. 19, fF. The hypothesis which ascribes a later origin to the book 
 for this reason misapprehends the entire essence of the poem ; it 
 would be worthy of consideration only if there were Parsisms and 
 Grecisms here, an assumption we have already rejected.^ 
 
 Of the historical books belonging to this period (Judges, Samuel, 
 Kuth) the style is easy and smooth : the ancient artless method of 
 history still subsists. In these we find, on the whole, little that 
 is peculiar. They are distinguished also by a certain poetic tinc- 
 ture, by concise and energetic modes of speech, in which they har- 
 monise partly with one another, partly with the poesies of the pe- 
 riod ; comp. e. (/r. the phrase '\yy n\ri7 "^"^ TyT\ (Judges vi. 34), 
 the spirit of God invested, mightily filled Gideon (imitated 1 Chr. 
 xii. 8 ; 2 Chr. xxiv. 20) ; the more common phrase for this is 
 
 rrini rwy yhv fh)^p\^^ J'-ui. xiv. 19, xv. u; 1 Sam. x. 11, 
 
 xvi. 13, xviii. 10 (in the more ancient speecli they used for this "^^v 
 im n^l' ^^- Num. v. 14.) The expression Qi^Q also is used of 
 the power of the divine spirit, Judg. xiii. 25. See on this my 
 
 1 Thus, especially Hnrtvnann, in Winer's Zeitsclirift, f. Wissenscbaftl. 7 lieol. L 3, s. 
 420, fif. To reckon, as is doue in this essay, all the significant words of the book, the 
 meaning of which is best elucidated from tlie Aramaic and Arabic, as indicating its later 
 character, is just to put weapons into the bands of the opponent; for these prove ex- 
 actly the independent and living element in that poetry. In general this attempt shows 
 how litile the linguistic character of a book can be indicated from a merely empiric appre 
 hension of the language. 
 
186 HISTORY OF THR 
 
 commentary on Daniel s. 43.i Purely poetical is Qigi^ for 
 O'l^Ti^, Judg. ii. 14, and 0D'^> *o plunder, ibid, and 1 Sam. xvii. 
 53 (lor 'j'j^), comp. Ps. Ixxxix. 42. The expression '^^^, vendere 
 for tradere ("r]-\3) is properly borrowed from the old poetry (Dent. 
 xxxii. 30), but in these books it is frequent, see Jud. ii. 14, iii. 8, 
 iv. 2, X. 7 ; 1 Sam. xii. 9, and so likewise Ps. xliv. 13. Entirely 
 poetic are such passages as Jud. xv. 1 6, or x- 8, ix. 48.^ Compare 
 further ~)~)^^, 1 Sam ii. 5, elsewhere only in the poets; ^n!J~)i»5]Ti> 
 where not only the word V^^ is aiva^ ^67., but also the form of 
 the suffix is poetic; j^ipTlJ is also poetic, cf. 1 Sam. xii. 7 ; Jud. 
 
 ' T : 
 
 V. 11, and is to be coupled with the abstract formations /TiT^^DIl' 
 &c., in the Proverbs and Psalms ; ''^^ 'j'jj^ ;-j^rj (in poetry in Job xxxiii. 
 10; Ps.xh7),Kuthiv.4; 1 Sam. xx."2, xiri3, ix. 15,xxii. 8—17; 
 2 Sam. vii. 27 ; the proverbial phrase Q'^^^ il")toi??^ 117 llt^' 
 1 Sam. i. 8 ; Euth iv. 15. The Aramaisms also are but few in 
 these books ; what have been reckoned as such in Judges and Sa- 
 muel are for the most part only older forms, which, however, have 
 remained dismembered here, and for this reason naturally the 
 poetical sections of these books must be considered separately ; thus 
 the word "i^j^, Judg. xvii. 2, which might most easily preserve itself 
 in the pers. pron. ; the article for the relative, Jud. xiii. 8, exactly as 
 Josh. X. 24 ; so the '!^"^3Jrnp/^, 1 Sara. i. 14, evidently the primary 
 mode of formation, comp. Ewald, Krit. Gr. s. 270 ; so also n3"ltZJ^' 
 1 Sam. VI. 12 ; 'J^^^^^lH' ^^^^- ^^- ^^5 under this head also may be 
 reckoned unconstructed forms like ^^"•tlJin''' ^ Sam. xvii. 47 ; 
 ^X^y^i 2 Sam. xxi. 6. To this also belong the Aramaising verbal 
 forms of the book of Euth, which do not at all betray the later Ara- 
 maic, but that which in the Hebrew, as well as the Aramaic, has 
 remained as an original constituent of the language, such asT^^^VD' 
 ii. 8 ; comp. Ex. xviii. 26. There has been here also some gross blun- 
 
 1 ["n?3 is derived as a denominative from B5>2, tbe foot, apace, and Lence signifies 
 concukare, eoncutere, as it is said of tbe mighty spirit of God which overcomts all ob 
 stacles, Jud. xiii. 25." — Tk.] 
 
 2 This is to be translated : What see you ? I perform it, so baste novp, &c. 
 
 3 Ewald says admirably, s. 144, sec. ed., that we must assume in these forms, namely, 
 the consonant forms of the future, necessarily an original diversity. We have in the 
 case before us exactly the oldest traces of such a distinction. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 187 
 
 dering, such as in regard to \Th' ^- ^^' ^^'Jcli is not Aramaic con- 
 tracted from "jpi ^^ == ^^ D^ (nisi), but a genuine Hebrew 
 word connected with the pronoun (see my Comment, on Daniel, s. 
 
 § 33. — C. THE OLD PROPHETIC LITERATURE. 
 
 The melancholy state of things which succeeded the reign of 
 Solomon in consequence of the penal revolt from the royal house 
 of David, and the internal corruption of worship and religion, pro- 
 duced also on the literature an eflect in the highest degree in- 
 jurious. Intimately associated with the Theocracy, its whole life 
 sank with this. Whilst the kings and princes of Israel offered ho- 
 mage to idols, and even the Priests of Jehovah shared in the wicked 
 tendency, there arose the Prophets as a salutary counteraction to 
 them. Working by verbal admonition and mighty deeds, they 
 sought first to save what was still to be saved among the impeni- 
 tent populace ; but as, with Israel's progressive sinfulness, the ter- 
 rible judgments of God drew ever the nearer, and as the prophet's 
 vocation had to do with the future as well as the present, the need 
 of the written word became felt, and hence their practical activity 
 grew to be chiefly exercised in the department of writing." In con- 
 sequence of this a new species of literature came into existence, 
 which cannot in a formal respect be classed with the poetry of the 
 immediately preceding period. The nature of the prophetic dis- 
 course is essentially more rhetorical than poetical. At times, it is 
 true, it assumes the form of that earlier character, and this for par- 
 ticular reasons, comp. e. gr. Is. xii., Hab. iii., &c. The less, how- 
 ever, poetry is distinguished by a precisely defined form, so much 
 the more may even this rhetorical form, according to the occasion or 
 idiosyncracy of the prophet, approximate to or recede from poetry. 
 
 1 [" This word is quite different from the Chaldaic particle ■("'■5, which is comp. of sV, 
 and in == Bs (s^s as), unless if {nisi) however, hut (the former is a comp. of the prop. 
 
 -A .7 
 
 h with the suffix). Theodoret renders by irXni) here, and the Syriac by ^n. ...X*-^ 
 in accordance with which Saadias gives the meaning thus, Not I (else would ye easily 
 discover the meaning thereof), but ye must yourselves tell the dream and then its expla- 
 nation. It is more natural, however, and regular to take the word in the sense of 
 hence, for the reason, as in Ruth i. 12." — Tr]. 
 
 2 Comp. Hengstenberg, Christologie I. 1, s. 202 : III., s. 138. 
 
188 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Id general they approach nearest in respect of the greater formal 
 freedom to the older Mosaic poetry, with which theirs has much 
 that is otherwise allied/ and that indicates a going back to it. 
 
 In the prophetic literature, care must be taken to discriminate the 
 age of each part. Only the earlier portions belong to the flourish- 
 ing periods of the language. In these we find a markedly correct 
 and refined style ; even the Aramaic element, elsewhere appropriate 
 to poetical compositions, appears very sparingly here; almost through- 
 out we encounter a classically pure Hebrew. In them we possess 
 the last monuments of the independent life of the language, which 
 assumes at a later period a distinctly different character ; the form 
 is here in the finest correspondence with the subject, which i-eadily 
 and without effort finds in the free living peculiarity of a language 
 as yet unaffected by outward influences its adequate expression. 
 
 This remark applies least to the oldest of the Prophets jJossessed 
 by us. In them the language appears as yet not fully culti- 
 vated ; it is not yet entirely free from Archaic unwieldiness, 
 and tolerates harshnesses of expression. These are, however, 
 but the transitions to the more polished diction of the imme- 
 diately succeeding Prophets, and we need not be surprised to find 
 such at the commencement of a new epoch, when that which went 
 before was so poor in literary production. Amongst those, we reckon 
 Hosea, Jonah, and Amos. The diction of Hosea betrays through- 
 out its antiquity. " As young effervescing wine," says Eichhorn 
 Einl. III., s. 290, 4te Ausg., " bursts the old bottles, so does he 
 also the fetters of grammar. He struggles with language, and 
 breaks it when it will not yield to the current of his thought ; 
 he despises the ordinary words, and chooses the rarest, as he can- 
 not with the former express himself strongly enough." Hence he 
 has peculiar constructions and combinations of words and clauses, 
 such as the expression "rni ^n'^"^?23' ^^- ^' " ^^^® priest- combatants" 
 (a brief allusion to Deut. xvii. 12), see on the construction, Ewald, 
 Krit. Gr., s. 620; ^^^ J^^ y]"^, vii. 16, corap. xi. 7 ; i)'T^^?\]-i'^ 
 i^^*-)'!)^'^, vii. 14, where 13^, as regards the construction, depends 
 from ''j]-\'i, but as regards the meaning from Qin^^^ DV !1D!J 
 
 • V; • T T 
 
 ^IID'^ J with God, besides God, to seek something else (not God, 
 
 T 
 
 1 Corap. r. gr. tlie AdJrcss, Deut. xxxii. 1, with Micali i. 2, vi. 2; Is. i. 2; Jcr. ii. 12 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 180 
 
 an idol), ix. 8 ; D*ijnQtr Q^"^3 D vtL^' ^^^- ^- Remarkable also are the 
 forms he uses to give greater force to bis expressions, as ^j^Tl ^Itlh?' 
 iv. J8 ; Dic^)Q^> ii. 4 ; QinrQIl^viii. 13 ; rm^"^i?li}' vi. 10 ; corap. 
 also the Hiphil form 7'^^^"^;^, xi. 3 (Ewald, ^ 238, sec. ed.) Unusual 
 also is the scrij)fio plena of the i»^ in Q^^p, x. 14, cf.,Ewald, s. 55, 
 sec. ed., and '?Ti^Di>572i^' corap. Ewald, s. 174 ; i^^~ijn, xi. 7 ; t^'i-^Qi 
 (for |-j^Q«i), xiii. 15. There occurs here also a stronger Aramaic 
 tinge, such as the infinitive-ending ^5H, vi. 9 (see, on the other 
 band, the imperative nSH' Hab. ii. 3) ; the form "I'^^'i^ instead of 
 ^^b««' xi. 4 ; tr^?2^|^ for ^\^^, ix. 6 ; ^:iv for ^^^% x. 0. To 
 these must be added many altogether peculiar expressions : □'^t^tZ? 
 (D'^1?D' Ps. ci. 3), V. %; nr^t^^t't:)' x'- '''' ^ » Qi^^lt^ fragments, viil. 
 6 ; nnS' V. 13 ; pry^, x. 2 ; □"in^^^"';^. xiii. 5, &c. — Hosea is fol- 
 lowed by Jonah, who was a native of the north of Palestine (of the 
 tribe of Zebulon), a circumstance which has exerted a marked in- 
 fluence on his style. ^ For the most part, he writes plain and 
 simple prose ; but his composition is pervaded with expressions of a 
 very peculiar kind, and in part of an Aramaic class : '^^t^pj, of the 
 tempest, i. 4, 12, also to cast in general, i. 5, 15 ; ^^^^n- ^f an in- 
 animate object, " to be in the mind, = to be about," i. 4 ;- "^^^irj^, 
 to be dashed in pieces, destroyed (of the ship), i. 4, comp. Ez. 
 xxvii. 34 ; p^^^nri' ^^ show himself gracious, i. G ; ^^j^^tTl' ''"'^o? 
 eveKa, quite Aramaic, as also in the earlier poetry, i. 7 (for this 
 ^^^ TiTi^S' ^- ^) ' ^° likewise '^'n^ii^, on my account, i. 12 ; pj^^jj, 
 
 elsewhere only in poetry (comp. the Syr. «nA.»), i. 1 1 ; "^jiH' '° 
 the proper meaning to row, i. 13 ; ft^f, of the sea, genuinely 
 poetic, i. 15, like ira maris, Ovid. Met. I. 330 ; X^'20i^ ^ favourite 
 expression of the book, ii. 1, iv. 6, 8 ; H^^i'^p i-^lp. "i- 2 ; "^^y 
 DTl'^b^^ nT'llil for ^2Q7 or i^ii^^l' comp. Gesen, Lehr. s. 693 ; 
 I'^li^H' deposuit, iii. 6 \pi clothes) ; Q^^, command, royal edict, 
 
 1 The attempt to draw from this a proof of a later composition of this book is to be put 
 down to the score of mistake ; see ex. (jr. De Wette, EinL § 237, who says, "judging from 
 the language of this book, it is one of tJie latest of the Old Testament." 
 
 2 De Wette, loc. cit., compares as a parallel passage Prov, xxiv. 8 ; not without 
 reason. 
 
1 90 HISTORY OF THK 
 
 only however, in the Aramaic, iii. 7 ; nS"^^~tS' son of a night, ia 
 the same night, as in the Aram. iv. 10, comp. Gesen. Lehr. s. 647, 
 758. Of none of these expressions can it be said that it betrays a 
 corrupted Hebrew ; rather does the contrary appear from the bold- 
 ness and originality of many ; nor is the Aramaic element stronger 
 than in Hosea, and hence in both it is to be referred to one source. 
 This influence appears to have had place with Amos, inasmuch as 
 he belonged to the lowest class of the people. Without regarding 
 him, on that account, according to a hasty judgment of Jerome, as 
 " imperitus sermone," we may admit that he exhibits some peculiari- 
 ties which appear to belong to the vulgar speech. Thus we have 
 a peculiar orthography in some cases, as ^^]-\j^ for ^J^f^r^' '^^- ^ (^^^^ 
 same case, Mai. i. 7. Comp. Gesen. Comm. z. Jes. I. s. 585, 
 Ewald Krit. Gr. s. 34) ; a gradual softening of the gutteral pro- 
 nunciation fi-^5 for fj'^^, which was also a later incorrect mode of 
 writing, as e. gr. in Ezra iv. 5, -^^p for -^3^, see Ewald, s. 29, 
 DtZ^il f'^i'UJJl^ll' ^- 11' ^^^ put?"*' ^'i- 9, 16, Ewald s. 33 (who 
 justly deduces this from the language of the people) ; j^^v foi' TP^ 
 ii. 13, as in the Aramaic; the contraction ■^"ij^^, viii. y, for -^^i^, 
 ix. 5, where some ignorantly enough have supposed an error of 
 the transcriber ; the word ja-^q, vi. 6, certainly an unusual, harsh 
 form for tl}"^Q, comp. "j-^g, &c.^ 
 
 A closely allied linguistic character is exhibited by the some- 
 what later prophets Joel, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and 
 Obadiah. Among these Micah and Isaiah are remarkable for the 
 most beautiful paronomasias and plays on words, a special orna- 
 ment of the oriental style, which however is found only in those 
 writers who in the fullest sense are masters of their language.^ In 
 Isaiah especially we find united most copiously, in proportion to the 
 
 1 This word is commonly misunderstood from being too little viewed in counectiou with 
 b^3, and known in its ground meaning. The common explanations also offend against 
 the parallelism, do not sufficiently respect the strictly corresponding s'iT;. Let D'^ta'^b 
 be coupled with "I'^'a "'''53, and reflect, on the wholly analagous n^lx b^s, Prov. xiii. l6, 
 
 7 
 
 with which also the Syriac usage of m^ <y> in Ethpaal is to be compared: studere, ma. 
 
 •X -^. 7 7 «-n 
 
 chinari ; e, gr. Michaelis, Syr. Chrest. s. 5, . e^n /..».. ^ £Dj^Z.|0> "he sought to 
 seize upon," and more examples in Dbpke Adnott. p. 110. 
 
 2 Comp. Hurtmanu's first Excursus ou Micah, s. Ilt3, flF. Herder Geist. der Heb. Poes. 
 II., 290, ff. Geseuius, Lehrg., s. 856, ff. Kleinert, Aechth. d. Jes., s. 279, ff. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 191 
 
 extent of his writings, the characteristics of a classical language ; 
 in this respect he may be viewed as " the Prince of the Prophets." 
 These prophets are for the most part poets, and hence the reason of 
 the many remarkable correspondencies between their language and 
 that of the earlier poetic period.^ Hence though several of them, 
 like Nahum and Habakkuk, keep at a distance from the Aramais- 
 ing element, and allow the pure Hebrew expression to prevail, yet 
 in others, as Micah, such an element may be found in entire ac- 
 cordance with their poetic character; comp. Hirzel 1. cit. p. 9. — 
 Of late this has been misunderstood in certain portions of Isaiah, 
 which in consequence of their philological character some would as- 
 sign to a later date. So especially Geseuius and Hitzig in their 
 commentaries on Isaiah. j Referring for the refutation of the former 
 of these to the satisfactory work of Kleinert (s. 203, ff.), we 
 shall confine ourselves here to the apparently more critical de- 
 duction of the latter. Here, with a total overlooking of the 
 elevated character of the poetry of Isaiah, we find adduced as 
 a mark of lateness the n^^^tl^n of tli^ Song of Solomon (s. 154), 
 and f^^Q in the sense of "to let go." He takes |^^^ in the 
 sense of '' to begin to speak," which is contrary to the language. 
 Equally perverse is the attempt to conclude for a later age from ^113 
 and 7\2j^?;2' which must be taken in an ill sense (tyrant, oppressor) ; 
 for a more exact examination of the usage of the language shows 
 that here also these words, as throughout, are ptj/xara fieaa, and can 
 receive ill sense only from the context. It is only on the assump- 
 tion that every unusual poetical signification of an object is to be 
 viewed as a late one that certain avr. Xer^. or peculiarities can be 
 adduced as such, as is done, s. 241. But it is a thoroughly arbi- 
 trary hypercriticism when the very forcibleness of the emotion by 
 which the numerus and the strict fetters of grammar are made to 
 give way to the claims of rhetoric, is adduced as a proof" that the 
 writer is no longer master of his style" (s. 273), a piece of reason- 
 ing on which refutation would be utterly thrown away. In the 
 same way it is incorrectly assumed that y\'^ means in later writers 
 "to carry on trafl&c," a meaning which it has neither in late writers 
 nor in early ones. The " form nD!D?:2 cannot have been constructed 
 
 1 Compare only the collection of examples in Kleinert loc. cit. s. 231. 
 
 2 Comp. also De Wette's Eiul., § 208. 
 
J 9"^ inSTORV OF THE 
 
 before the captivity" (sic !) and yet it is to be found already in the 
 Pentateuch ! As httle is the attempt, s. 297, to prove the section, 
 ch. xxiv. — xxvii., of later date, supported by one example which, on 
 valid grounds, would prove this. In s. 395 the word'^';)?^, xxxiv. 4, 
 used of a book is said to be a late word, because it was not till 
 Jeremiah's age that there was any knowledge of Megillahs ; but 
 this is incorrect, on account of Ps. xl. 8, which Hitzig, without any 
 sufficient reason, ascribes (Begr. d. Krit., s. 76, ff.) to the age of the 
 captivity; also in Isaiah, there is not so much as even mention 
 made of a single np^?2' ^^^ °^ ^ book in general ("^qdO D'^'^'in 
 nobiles, xxxii. 12, belongs to the later usage, in so far as it is 
 applied to the inland relations of the Israelites (as e. gr., 1 Kings 
 xxi. 8, 11 ; Neh. vi. 17, &c.,) but it is not so used by Isaiah, who 
 employs the foreign word*^ of Edora's princes. 2 — "^^^jn- xxxiv. 13, 
 court, is not assuredly an elongation for "^^^n (^^® ^^ the contrary 
 
 V T 
 
 Ewald, Kr. Gr. s. 231), but as little is it as Hitzig supposes (s. 401) 
 5 
 
 Arabistic (r!^^^) find hence a later word (s. 395), but an adjec- 
 tive, "an enclosed thing;" the adj., however, stands here poeti- 
 cally for the substantive, as was formerly remarked. — But Hitzig 
 calls attention especially (s. 472, fF.) to the later character of the 
 style of the second part of Isaiah. The laxity of the syntax, in the 
 first place, is here such as to " go beyond all the other Hebrew," to 
 which it is strangely added, " and no later writer ever equals him 
 in this"— a judgment which is especially adverse to those who 
 maintain the former position, since there is thus ascribed to the 
 writer an originality in his usage of language which cannot be 
 ascribed to him on the hypothesis of the spuriousness of this sec- 
 tion. In support of this opinion there is alleged the placing of 
 the accusative before the infinitive by which it is governed (xlix. 6), 
 which must be an Aramaic usage ; in opposition to which it is to be 
 considered how that arrangement has arisen out of the already 
 foregoing infinitive, which is construed regularly, and must be also 
 
 1 In tlie Aramaic, comp. |'I-»-». I'I-»-»r^, in tlie Arabic ^=* liber, ingenuu9,e. ^rr. 
 Ali sentent. nr. 9, 43, ed. Stickel. 
 
 2 Elsewhere the equally remarkable -word rj'iVs is used for this. As Zecbariah applies. 
 this word to Israel, so also the later writers apply our n-'-^'-n, and this is a very instruc- 
 tive parallel for showing the ancient usage of Isaiah. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 198 
 
 transformed to the following, for the strengthening of which a new 
 infinitive is however placed.i The construction ^i"!^^ VDH' ^^^^• 
 21, "he was pleased to honour," the fut. for the infin. must needs 
 be Arabic, in support of which Job xxxii. 22 is also cited. But 
 Hitzig might have learned the true construction from Ewald, s. 331, 
 2te Ausg., where perfectly analogous cases are cited from the purest 
 Hebrew prose. After such illustrious specimens we may pass over 
 the other syntactical anomalies, among which, e. gr., is rated " the 
 great levity with which the author makes the first and second per- 
 son relative," the non-repetition of the preposition, and such like, 
 of which enough may be found abundantly among the best early 
 poets. 
 
 Still more decisive of a later composition must be the construc- 
 tion of the forms. But here also we find only deaf nuts. " A 
 transference, it is said, of the passive pronunciation of Pual to the 
 reflexives, as in V^^^^^, lii. 5, "^^^13, lix. 3, does not occur in the 
 earlier writers, and the latter of these forms is found only besides 
 in Lam. iv. 14." This rule (adopted even by Ewald) wants 
 correction. The properly later phenomenon, because a corruption 
 of the Hebrew usage of the Hithpael, is the passive use of this for 
 the reflexive."^ If, however, a passive pronunciation of the reflexive 
 forms must be admitted, there appears such (though seldom) in a 
 twofold manner : 1, as Hotpaal ; thus only in the Pentateuch, and 
 also in Is. xxxiv. 6 ; or 2, with a passive pronunciation of the 
 strengthened form; thus Is. lii. 5; Prov. xxv. IG, xlvi. 8. Both 
 modes of construction are alike good, and based in the essence of 
 the language, inasmuch as Hithpael is a compound conjugation. 
 The passive pronunciation of Niphal, formed according to the 
 latter analogy, is peculiar only to Isa. lix. 3, for the passage in 
 Lam. iv. 14 is visibly imitated from this, just as the entire re- 
 presentation in Is. lix. hes at the basis of that of Jeremiah in the 
 
 1 [The author means, I presume, that even had the inf. ai'in^ not been used at all, the 
 construction would have been complete, as the inf. B^pn's would govern not only 
 ap'^y '^"c^V ns5 but also tJS^b'^ ■^^1231, and that the second inf. is used only for the sake of 
 adding force to the statement : " For the raising up of the tribes of Jacob and the pre- 
 served of Israel, for leading back."]— Tr. 
 
 2 This is found only in the latest writers, for the two examples adduced from Gen. 
 xxii. 18 and Mic. vi. 16 by Ewald, Kr. Gr. s. 205, are not correctly referred to this. 
 Niphal also passes gradually into the conception of the passive. 
 
 N 
 
J !)4 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 passage adduced. i " The softening of preformative pj in Hiplnl 
 in •i^'^^j^,- Ixiii. -3, is only found in the later writers." But 
 Hitzig himself contends for this softening in Is. viii. 2, and thus 
 contradicts himself. " Most evidently is the author convicted hy 
 the interchange of the prep. ]-\^ with the sign of the accusative, 
 liv, 15, lix. 21." It is true that this interchange is a later^ usage; 
 hut the instances in Isaiah are of quite a different kind : in liv. 15 
 i]-)"^^^ stands in consequence of the pause ; that the author knew 
 ^int^?2 well enough in other places is proved by the following 1 7th 
 verse; the other passage, lix. 21, is to be rendered: " this is ray 
 covenant, your memorial ;" comp. the closely parallel passage, Iv. 13 ; 
 see also liv. 10. Only in this way does the passage suit the con- 
 text, and correspond with the passages of the Pentateuch, which 
 speak of a covenant-memorial, to which Isaiah here undoubtedly 
 alludes. " A covenant with you " would be here very flat, and 
 not even good Hebrew. — " To the identity with the genuine Isaiah 
 it is by no means favourable that in Ix. 17, nip3 signifies magis- 
 trate, whilst in Is. x. 3 it signifies visitation, punishment." But 
 the former meaning of the word occurs already in the Pentateuch, 
 and that there is an allusion thereto in consequence of the descrip- 
 tion of the new theocratic reign is undeniable. — " The high antiquity 
 of the book is opposed by the formation of a Pual from ^-^p (in 
 the first mood and partic.) Iviii. 12, Ixi. 3, Ixii. 2, Ixv. 1, xlviii. 
 12, also Ez. X. 13, of a Pilel from p^^^ Iviii. 8, also Ps. cxliii. 
 5, of a Piel from "^jf^Q, e. gr. Ix. 7, 13, also Ezr. vii. 27," &c. 
 Here, however, it is to be observed that those peculiarities which 
 occur in Ezekiel and Ezra in prose are used by Isaiah in highly 
 poetical discourse, a circumstance which must be ascribed to the taste 
 of the writer. — "He has a transitive Kal ;^-fp, Iviii. 13, Ixv. 5; 
 whilst the earlier writers always write \2J1p ^'^ this sense." But not 
 to insist upon the different explanation which has been given of 
 Iviii. 13, it may be observed of Ixv. 5 that here the Kal is used 
 purposely, because the reference is to something unusual, to idola- 
 trous consecration, (compare the subst. \2J"7p) ; elsewhere it is of 
 
 1 The forms 'I'^si'', Ez. ii. 62, and ^s:tt, Mai. i. 7, 12, prove that such a formation can 
 belong Duly to the substantiality of the living speech, confequently manifestly to the 
 taste of Isaiah. 
 
 '^ From the earlier writers only a very few cases of the kind occur. Comp. § 32. 
 
ORIGINAL LANCirjAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 105 
 
 Jehovah alone that ^"ryp is used. — " He Hkewise uses, Ixiv. G, a 
 Kal yyf2 ^^ t,he transitive sense of the Pilel or of a Hiphil." This, 
 however, is a well-known license of poets. — " It is only in keeping 
 when he allows an intransitive Hiphil, such as I'^^'^H' ^^^^- ^' ^^' 
 
 10, to be also causative, in which he accords with the chronicler 
 (comp. 1 Chron. ii. IS, viii. 8), and makes an intransitive Hiphil, 
 like tr^jirT' ^^' ~^' "^^" ^ transitive, whereby he differs from the 
 genuine Isaiah (comp. v. 19)." But the conception lo make to 
 hear cannot be otherwise expressed in Heb. than by "T^7"iJi. ai^d 
 the latter is one too common to be any cause of special offence ; 
 comp. e. gr. "i^'VPT to attest, and with the accus. to cause to attest. Is. 
 viii. 2. — The impure Hebrew, corrupted by Arabisms and Arama- 
 isms is made to apppear chiefly from the following : "^^13, ^^ prove 
 
 ;_kjjO, Syr. strengthening like ^O, ^-^ ; compare xlviii. 10. But 
 ■^HD, J^ust retain here its common signification to select or choose, 
 which alone suits the context; see ver. 9 and 11. The expres- 
 sion, "peoples and tongues," Ixvi. 18, is certainly not radically an 
 Aramaism, since it rests indubitably on a reference to Gen. x. On 
 "^j^'i, Ivi. 12, see Kleinert, lib. cit. s. 212.— The □"^^^iD' ^l'- ^^> ^^ 
 certainly a foreign word, which, however, in the age of Isaiah could 
 not be unknown to the Hebrews on account of their relations with 
 Assyria. It is intentionally used for the denoting of a foreign 
 object.^ 
 
 Such are the principal instances adduced by Hitzig, and from 
 these one may judge of the untenability of the rest. For, proofs 
 drawn, e.gr., from the Arabic meaning of ^pj\y, to charm away, xlvii. 
 
 1 1, are to be passed over in silence, since they rest upon gross mis- 
 understanding of the passages in question.^ Still more must this 
 be imputed to this critic when he sets aside the many and remark- 
 able affinities between the part he impugns, and the language of 
 the part universally acknowledged as genuine of Isaiah (see Klei- 
 nert, 8. 221, ff.) as " minutiffi." But that that is not said in earnest 
 
 1 Isaiah, however, does not appear to have known the precise usage of the word, for 
 he employs it in the general sense of ruler or prince ; whereas in the Book of Daniel it 
 denotes a definite class of officers. Here also we find first the exact local knowledge ; 
 see my Comment, s. 99. 
 
 2 Thus xlvii. 11 is by Gesenius rightly rendered : " ruin the dawn of which thou seest 
 not." In a similar tropical manner is the dawn used by Joel ii. 2. 
 
 N 9- 
 
196 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 is evident from what is added, when he seeks to explain these " nii- 
 nutise" from a " relation of dependence of this writer upon the 
 genuine Isaiah." Every one sees that such minutiae are neverthe- 
 less very mark-worthy and glaring (comp. s. 4G9.) A vigorously 
 scientific linguistic research can hardly satisfy itself with such 
 phrases. It is good, however, that there are such witnesses to 
 prove how far party-spirit has gone in the Neologian criticism, and 
 how it has violently confounded the simplest and almost proverbial 
 rules. 
 
 § 34. SECOND AGE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. 
 THE PERIOD OF THE CAPTIVITY. 
 
 With the period of the captivity (inclusive of both the imme- 
 diately preceding and following age) there arose an entirely new li- 
 terature strikingly different from the earlier, and which is to be 
 traced to the influence exerted by the Aramaic tongue upon the 
 Hebrew which had previously been developing itself within re- 
 stricted limits. There were, indeed, before this Aramaic offshoots 
 which had settled as colonies in the then kingdom of Israel (2 
 Kings xvii. 24) ; but these had entered into no relations of a friendly 
 nature with the Israelites (corap. 2 Kings xxiii. 19, 20.) From 
 the time of the death of Josiah, however, Ju(Jah was continually 
 exposed to invasions from Babylon, and then there began to be a 
 disturbance of the purity of the ancient mother- tongue, which con- 
 tinually increased until this ceased, during the time of the captivity, 
 to be the language of the people (see § 35.) Certain modications 
 thus also befel the hterature, which we may in the general reduce 
 to a twofold phenomenon. 
 
 There are two ways in which the destruction of the independence 
 of a language makes itself apparent. People are in the first instance 
 necessitated to revert to the older purer documents in order to re- 
 produce from them again in a living state the extant language, and 
 thus there arises the principle of imitating the earlier writings. But 
 even with that the literature cannot be kept free from the popular 
 corruption of the language, which glimmers out more or less ac- 
 cording to the greater cultivation and the varied individuahty of the 
 writer ; and thus there arises a corrupt written language. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 197 
 
 From the former of these principles there has proceeded in the 
 Hebrew literature, in the first instance, a new species of historio- 
 graphy. It exhibits the modification that the narrative is now put 
 together as a compilation from the sources, of which the books of 
 Kings may be taken as indicating the beginning, whilst those of 
 Chronicles exhibit the tendency in a more fully realised state. 
 Closely connected with the historical books stand the later prophets, 
 which are based partly on the Pentateuch, partly on the earlier 
 prophets, in such a fashion that without a comparison of both por- 
 tions they can neither in respect of form nor in respect of material 
 he comprehended. In like manner the poetical compositions of this 
 period, such as Ecclesiastes, a portion of the Psalms, and the 
 Lamentations, bear a character of imitation, and of the use for the 
 most part of the ancient models. 
 
 The corrupt written language has again two divisions. Much of 
 it is nothing else than what has proceeded from the internal decay 
 of the language itself, as earlier elegancies fell into disuse, and the 
 language assumed a coarser and less smooth character. Some- 
 thing also is due to the foreign Aramaic idiom mingling with the 
 Hebrew, and obtaining a naturalization in it. It is difficult, how- 
 ever, not to say impossible, to make a perfect separation here, be- 
 cause the corrupted Hebrew would be itself allied to the Aramaic. 
 In this way much is found in this language in prose, which at an 
 earlier period was peculiar to poetry, and even — so many archaisms 
 are here already statedly received. In order, however, to estimate 
 aright what belongs to the later written language, it is by no 
 means sufficient merely to enumerate and collect some forms 
 raked together out of these writings,^ whereby one cannot miss fall- 
 ing into blunders f there needs a careful observation and intuition 
 of the inner development of the language. Thus here there is ap- 
 parent in the orthography an effort after distinctness which shows 
 itself principally in the scriptio plena of the vowel-letters, which 
 enters into even the most familiar words, where in the earlier time 
 it was not needed (see Ewald, § 150, 2te Ausg.), as Di")^?'!*^'^, 'W\ 
 (Movers, ub. d. Chronik. s. 43 and 200.) An effort appears also 
 to lengthen the trilitteral stems, by means of interpolating the 
 liquid •^, without there being any reason for this in the coming- 
 
 1 As Gesenius, e. gr. has done in his Geschichte d. Heb. Spr. s. 28, ff. 
 
 2 As when Gesenius rediieea under this head the forms in l"i-ri^-, &c. See on llie 
 other side Eichhorn, I. 83, 4le Ausg. 
 
198 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 together of two stems, or a stronger meaniDg of the stem (as is 
 always the case where this occurs in the older language) ; thus 
 D*"!^.^ for ^^^ in Esther, nSi?"^p twig, Ezek. xxxi. 5; ^y^:^ for 
 ^ID (Chron. and Dan.), and even in proper names, as p'^i^iyyi ^'^^ 
 plZJTST (Chron). Exactly similar is the usage of the Syrians (Ge- 
 senius, Lehrg. s. 8G3, fF.) The ]-\ of the feminine is weakened, 
 and there remains, as in the Aramaic, only a o — u, as in ^"i^-i 
 ■^r^-^, earlier nm- '^^^^ distinction between passive and reflexive 
 formations gradually disappears; the latter come into the place of 
 the former, whilst conversely the passive formations assume a 
 reflexive meaning, and form a kind of imperative (Jer. xlix. 8 ; 
 Ez. xxxii. 19.) The use of the future with the so-called vav 
 conversivum is here, as respects its ground-character, more ob- 
 literated, and the verbal stem appears usually in the full form 
 of the fut. absol., comp. Ewald, s. 104. The particle j-|^, as 
 the sign of the accusative and as a preposition, ceases to be 
 any longer discriminated, and the Aramaic ^ is introduced as 
 the mark of the accusative. It is an indication of poverty in the 
 language which is no longer familiar with the delicate usage of 
 ]-(^, that it employs ^ (which is, as respects its nature, properly 
 demonstrative) to denote alike the nearer and the more remote object. 
 It is also a real degeneracy of the language which is indicated in 
 the use of ^p^. at an earlier period used only collectively, and so 
 
 't T 
 
 distinguishably from ^^ij^, as also a plural of individual cattle. 
 Likewise "J^V ^^ °^^ Hebrew constantly to work, to serve (fully 
 allied to the stronger stem ^^j;, on which see Bottcher, Proben, s. 
 53), is in the later weakened into the general signification to do, 
 as constantly in Aramaic. Another evidence of the degeneracy of 
 the language is the use of the prep. '^^, which originally was used 
 emphatically to express the subduing power of an affection (see 
 Ewald, z. Hohenl. s. 122), chiefly in a bad, more rarely in a good 
 sense,^ but which in the later usage appears only in the latter, with- 
 out any emphatic accessory notion ; as TT~i^n ^V ^^12 (Esther, 
 Neh.), where the earlier usus requires i^^^^,. or something equiva- 
 let. So TT'ip^ stands in the sense o^ just as, tor/et/ier with, in the 
 
 1 And here also always with a special emphasis, as in Ps. xvi. fi, "<•;>• "lEiu, which 
 Ewald extellpntl}" renders : "it pleases me greatly.'' (Gr, s. 3:s7.) 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 109 
 
 later writers, Bottcber, 1. c. s. 36. The frequent dilatation of the 
 prepositions and adverbs is peculiar in general to the later writers ; 
 as "Ti"^?:^^ "IV' ^ ^^^^' ^^^" ^^ ' ^i^ "fJ^' ^ TE^iogs ix. 20, Ewald, s. 
 330. Under this bead, moreover, we must place also the usage "i"^^ 
 for Q*^|^, especially in Dan. and Cbron., '^n -y'^g for n^;^' 1"^ ^"^' 
 
 The degeneracy of the language is best seen in those pieces in 
 which older ones have been recomposed. The method and manner 
 in which the difficulties and harshnesses of the older are evitated in 
 the more recent writings show not so much a want of knowledge, 
 on the part of the writer, of the older idiom (for that this cannot be 
 assumed is determined by the attested acquaintance of these authors 
 with their ancient sacred literature), as rather the estrangement of 
 the popular language from the ancient written language ; in order 
 to make themselves intelligible to their contemporaries, each writer 
 had to use the idiom current among them. Thus, e.gr., in the re- 
 petition of the older prophecies concerning Moab by Jeremiah ; 
 comp. Num. xxi. 28, 29, xxiv. 17, with Jer. xlviii.45, 46. Tu the 
 Pent, we have ^i^trn^' H^!^'' ir« ^^^ '^"^ Jei'- 'to i^!?"' t^i^ ''3 
 (where we see already the later inexactness in respect of gender, 
 2Ji<^ is invariablyy^'wm/we in the Pentateuch, comp. Gesenius, Lehrg. 
 s. 546 : a perfectly similar case is with ri^^n!3' ^2- ^- ^)^ — Pent. : 
 ^XVX^ r>^"^jpp ^^n^' Jer. : Jh^p-j^np TX^^^. (^^^^'^' °" account of 
 the ambiguity, pi-^p [comp. also Num. xxii. 39] is avoided.) — Pent. : 
 n«iD ^r\)^^ ynn^' Jer. : ^^in n«?) ^5^^n] (f^^ the genuine 
 poetic 0"ij-|^^9 there stands the prosaic sing. ni^Q' ^tttiis, comp. Exod. 
 xxvi. 18, in Jer. as the context, comp. ver. 37, shows = pfnili^S 
 (Lev. xix. 27, xxi. 5), the ivhiskers, comp. ix. 25, xxv. 23, xlix. 
 
 32).— Pent. : nUJ-m-^S I'^l^l.' '^*^^' l")^? ^^5 '^W^. ^^^®^® ^"^' 
 two difficult terms is a term expressing only the sense in general), 
 &c. In the same relations to each other stand the prophecies of 
 Isa. XV., xvi., compared with Jer. xlviii ; Is. xiii., xiv. with Jer. 
 1., li. ; Is. xxiii. 16 with Ez. xxvi. 13, &c.^ 
 
 1 Geseuius has treatLcl this relation altogttber inconectlj' (Com. z. Jes. I. 513) ; lie 
 linds in Jer. tlie more difficult readings, and hence hastily concludes that Jer. had a dif- 
 ferent text of Numb. xxi. before bira. 
 
 "■^ Sufficient care has not been taken in regard to these relations to discriminate what 
 
200 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 From this it may be easily conceived how this use of the earher 
 writers would become more and more free as the degeneracy of the 
 Hebrew advanced, and would less reverently treat the form of the 
 originals or the sources, but would alter them so as to suit the 
 time. In this respect the books of Kings and of Chronicles are in 
 a philological point of view of high interest, since we can by 
 means of them observe the alleged process very distinctly in the 
 case of two writings between the composition of which hardly a 
 century intervened. The former keeps very close by its sources, 
 and gives indication of its later character only in particular linguis- 
 tic peculiarities (see under) ; the latter, on the contrary, has en- 
 stamped upon the diction of the original, on the whole, a character 
 which very clearly bespeaks the advancing extinction of the lan- 
 guage. The chronicler, as a rule, corrects the older expression, 
 altering it according to the more recent style and formation, or ex- 
 changing it for another. Hence the already noticed scriptio plena ; 
 the Aramaising orthography with ^ prosthetic, as i\2)ii»^, comp. 
 Ewald, § 155, 2te Aufl. ; the compensation by a liquid for the Da- 
 gesh forte, as pti^^^'^'ry constantly for p^y^Ty, comp. 1 Chron. xv. 
 27 ; the older forms, such as the termination in 'n — , the pron, 
 ■^Dit^' t^6 forms TO7Q^5 1131111' iini^?:2 changed into the later 
 '!\ — 1^^, ri'')D7?2' l^iniH' '^'2V_' '^c. More ancient constructions are 
 supplanted by more recent : thus the combination of the finite verb 
 with the infin. absol. is no longer current, the latter is regularly 
 dropped ; the names of countries, where they are used for the inha- 
 bitants, are construed not with the singular fern, of the verb, but 
 with the plural (comp. Gesen. Lehrg. s. 469) ; in place of the con- 
 junction of the simple object with verbs of motion to denote the 
 direction (Ewald, s. 315), the preposition is used, which formerly 
 was done only in case of special emphasis, &c. For the earlier ex- 
 pression a later is instituted : thus e. gr. for ipQ, to number, mus- 
 ter (later, to command), we have 'yr^'o ', for Jii^, to uproot, ^]-\j ; 
 for n^Q' ^0 *'^'^'^' 1DH ' f°^ l^D' ^o ^u'"'^ oneself, ^^^ ; for *^^^, to 
 
 TT '— T — T — T 
 
 impute, ;-7^^ ; for i-iii^i, a corpse, J-jq^^j, &c. Less frequent is the 
 
 XT T • : T 
 
 converse where the chronicler puts the usual regular and more 
 
 lias beeu altered in consequence of adaptation to the individnal object of each writer 
 from what has merely aCornml character. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 201 
 
 correct for the anomalous and improper in the older writings — a 
 circumstance which is explained by the same effort after rendering 
 the original more plain, and which is limited to what is usual and 
 easily offers itself to observation from the study of the older writers. 
 Thus the chronicler writes, e. gr. •^'^^i for "^i^^, t^D3 ^o^ JlDS' 
 j.^^^^ for »i2?2 ; be uses the abbreviated future after vav. relat. 
 where in the parallel places the full future is found, and avoids the 
 cohortative ^ — after this vav (comp. Ewald, s. 104), &c. See 
 Movers, lib. cit. 
 
 The transition to the period now under consideration is made 
 by Zepbaniah, the contemporary of Josiah. Certainly his language 
 is the purest of this age ; still he has much that is peculiar and new, 
 as i. 9, 'jriD72n~^i^ "^y^- ^^ ^^^^^ springs over the threshold, i.e. 
 who irreverently approaches the Lord without being purified (comp. 
 Is. i. 12; Ez. ix. 3); i. 12, rii"l|l D'^^tl^^^lVri^i!. t^Sjlt^l ' the 
 form tDtl^ipnrf' ^^ '^^^ oneself carefully, ii. 1 ; he has also very ele- 
 gant instances of Paronomasia that remind us of Micah ii. 4. 
 But there is observable in him a remarkable want of independence, 
 inasmuch as he contains much out of the older prophets ; comp. 
 e. gr. i. 15 with Joel ii. 2 ; ii. 14 with Is. xxxiv. 11 ; ii. 15 with 
 Is. xlvii. 8, and xiii. 21, 22, &c. Besides, traces are apparent 
 of the later usage of the language, particularly an affinity with Je- 
 remiah, comp. the phrase V'^^^U^^^i? h^Dp' ^' ^^' ^^^ J^r. xlviii. 
 
 T T : — T 'T 
 
 11 ; h^Dri' to make an end, i. 2, 3, Jer. viii. 13, comp. Dan. ii. 
 44 ; D"i;i^i) iii- 18j comp. Lam. i. 4, Ewald, s. 244 ; the n^iTf' ^"- 
 1, comp. Jer. xxv. 28, xlvi. 16, 1. 16 ; q"^?^, iii. 3, to tear off (for 
 
 7 
 
 the sake of preserving), like the Syr. ^ra- 
 
 Still more corrupt is the style of Jeremiah, who lived somewhat 
 later, and in whom the influence of the Aramaic is already very 
 evident.^ He has much that is analogous to the books of Kings, 
 only that the latter, in consequence of the older sources from which 
 they are drawn, are on the whole less impure in style. Jeremiah 
 also connects himself very closely with the earlier prophets, and 
 with the Pentateuch, as has been already shown. Here are found 
 in place of the older expressions new ones which were either wholly 
 
 1 Comp. A. Knobel, Jeremias chaldaizans. Di.ssert. Vratislav, 1831, 8vo— uot ela- 
 borated with sufficient criticism. 
 
 1 
 
202 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 unknown to the earlier period, or were used in another sense. 
 Thus ni^"'' ^ ^SLter softening of ni^3' ^^ ^^ ^^^^' amiable, well-be- 
 
 TT T T 
 
 coming (cognate also is no^)' J^r. x. 7 (for this we have ni<3' ^®^ 
 Ps. xciii. 5), used here without any change of meaning as in older 
 changes of the sort ; comp. ^^i and ^^3, m"^"? and \2jp3 (comp. 
 Bottcher, Proben, s. 8.) D]-\3, in the old Hebrew alHed in meaning 
 with Djin (comp. Qj^^), Jer. ii. 22, to be spotted, or soiled, as in 
 the Aram. ^^^, ohnuhilavit, Lam. ii. 1, softened from the ancient 
 
 ..OB 
 
 rt^^j comp. in Syr. |.ClL, latihulum, lustrum ferarum. So also 
 tli^iS' ^ bundle, a traveller's bundle, from ^^D' softened from ^^3 
 (t!?23)' ^^^- ^- 17, whereas in old Hebrew ^^3 is connected with ^"^3. 
 to bind. Conversely from ^-^3 the harsher form ^-)3, DID arose, 
 
 which is found in the noun ^vi-^^, the belly, Ii. 34, Syr. l^D?^, 
 
 £03^. piiry, a watch-tower, lii. 4, 2 Kings xxv. 1, and in Ezekiel 
 
 for ^"^^iQ, n^"i!J, from the Aram. .Oj, speculari, prospicere. ^07^' 
 
 aryilla, xliii. 9, Syr. 1^^^^, instead of the Heb. l?Qn. I5I?1' 
 tremor, xlix. 24, a permutation of the ancient j-\ into ^, j-|ni' 
 see Hos. xiii. 1 } From the ancient ^^-^ and r^^-^ there arose in 
 Jeremiah, ^^j-^, v. 17 (comp. Mai. i. 4.) The n^H ^^^ passed 
 into ^f^H' comp. n^^H' ^^- 1^'' comp. Ezek. i. 24, in place of 
 fiorr. — Here also occur a number of foreign words for the objects 
 which, through their intercourse with Babylon, came to the know- 
 ledge of the Hebrews, and which in part were thenceforward trans- 
 ferred to Israelitish relations as the expressions referring to the new 
 political relatipns •? rm?2' ^am. i. I ; 1 Kings xx. 14, 15, 17, 19, 
 &c. ; pD' praefectus, Jer. Ii. 23, 28, 57 ; ^ir\^_, governor, Ii. 23, 
 28, 57 ; 1 Kings x. 15, 20, &c. ; ;2"1' as a title of honour often in 
 connection with other words such as Q^fjiSlO 1"^- U^'^D 1"!' 3D — l") 
 (for which at an earlier period "^27 ^^'^s used.) — The dechne of the 
 language, however, is especially shown by the grammatical forma- 
 tions. It has partly lost the finer construction which was produced 
 
 1 Exactly like nsn, latir nyu, Ezek. xiii. 10, Syr. \^^- 
 
 2 See thereon my Comment, on Danifl, s. 95, ff. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 203 
 
 duriug its flourishing period, and reverts to the old, original, rug- 
 ged character, so that Archaisms are found; partly the peculiar cha- 
 racteristic Hebrew has disappeared, and we find in place of it for- 
 mations which indicate an Aramaic influence. Thus we have the 
 full Pronominal forms ij-) — iji^. "^3 — (in the verb) introduced 
 already as regular, for which the earlier language preferred the more 
 delicate abbreviation (comp. Knobel, p. 9, 13), the pf praef. of the 
 Hiphil is already for the most part hardened into p (Tiphil, see 
 Ewald, s. 117; Knobel, p. 10, sq.) The verbs with ^ or ;-f show 
 here more frequently than elsewhere the "^ and •», which lies at their 
 
 base, e. f/r. in ni^li^ ^"-'^ Hiph. (Syr. j-OOJ), xlvi. 8; rV"^^ for 
 
 Di^S3 ' ^^^0 t^^® us^ *^^ "^HT^ fo*' i^''l?2' "^t^nn ^^^'' i^^tDnrT' belongs 
 to this (comp. Hoffmann, Gr. Syr. p. 221.) Degeneracy is attested 
 by the abstract formations where formerly the concrete prevailed, as 
 -^"^2^, a lye (Job ix. 30 ; Is. i. 25), for which ni"^iii> Jer. ii. 22 ; Mai. 
 iii. 2 ; or when the conception itself is very repugnant, as in D*i]i'^Q?3, 
 xvi. 4, comp. 2 Kings xi. 2 ; Ez. xxviii. 8. The old accusative 
 sign becomes even less usual, and in its place occurs the Aram. ^ 
 (comp. Knobel, p. 30, sq.) Decidedly anomalous is the placing of 
 the article before the first noun in the stat. constr., as xxxii. 12, 
 XXV. 20, xxxviii. 9 ; comp. 1 Kings xiv. 24; 2 Kings xxiii. 17 ; 
 Ewald, s. 310. Here likewise the pervading interchange of the 
 accusative sign j^^ and the preposition is a sure sign of a later 
 coiruption of the language. 
 
 Still deeper does this go with the writers who composed while 
 actually living in Babylon during the exile — Ezekiel and Daniel. 
 The former has carried negligence of form so far, that it may with 
 truth be said that he contains relatively the largest number of 
 grammatical irregularities and incorrectnesses (Gesenius, Gesch. s. 
 3.').) Passing over what is common to him with Jeremiah, the fol- 
 lowing is chiefly deserving of notice : the partly antiquated, partly 
 Aramaising Pronominal-forms, j^pji — , xh. 15; ^ — for pi[ — , 
 x.\xv. 5 ; T12TV — H^ri''""' ^^- 10 ; i. I [ ; pj^py — , xvi. 53 (comp. 
 1 Kings vii. 37) ; pj^^ — , xxiii. 48 ; nsnt^' ^^'^- ~0 ' "'J — f'^i-'"^ — . 
 xlvii. 7; — the verbal forms i«^nip' fc<^m!l' xxxi. 5; xxvii. 31; 
 
 . J T :'|x T ;|t 
 
 T^liV (^"t. Kal. from ^^i^), xlii. 5, comp. Bottcher, Proben, s. 
 
 354; the imperative of the Hophal, xxxii. 19 (comp. also Jerem. 
 
 2 
 
204 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 xlix. 8 ; the conjunction of the infinitive in j-^-^ — with the Plural 
 suffix (vi. 8, xvi. 31, Leheg. s. 215) ; two forms are inexactly 
 melted into one in ■^i>^tijt^3, ix. 8, see Ewald, Kr. Gr. s. 489, and in 
 the same light probably we are to regard the difficult Dri'^inntpi' 
 viii. 16, Ewald 1. c. Among nominal forms may be noticed as 
 peculiar the Plur. ]-\^ — xxxi. 8, xlvii. 11, comp. Ewald, s. 55 and 
 234, 2te Ausg. i^:i'io ^^^' b^llt^- x^"^- ^ ^ 5 ^^^ ^^^^ endings "n — , 
 xiii. 18, and q — , xxv. 9, xlvi. 19. Less gross anomalies are found 
 in Daniel, whose language is nevertheless in many respects allied 
 to that of his cotemporaries. Thus we find the infinitive forma- 
 tion, r\^"^^nnn' ^^- ^^' which has no analogy but that of Ezek. 
 xxiv. 26 (rVlj^n^n)' so hkewise ^^in- liH' I^an. i. 10; Ez. xviii. 
 17 . ^-^.p^ Dan. xii. 3 ; Ez. viii. 2 ; ;|^, Dan. i. 5 ; Ez. xxv. 7 ; 
 
 inS^o^'^DD' ^^°' ^' ^^ ' ^^- ^'^' ^' ^^' ^^^^ ^°°^ ^^^" ^°^' 
 tains much that is new, and of an Aramaic cast, as e. yr. "IV^D ^o'' 
 ji;;;, after the Aramaic pj;, viii. 19, xii. 7 ; TSTX) = n?2n?2 i» 
 the bad sense, viii. 23 ; XV^^. fo^" n» Booty, xi. 24, 33, the form 
 
 T • ~ 
 
 n!3"lb3^n' ^"^- ^^' ^^® '^1?.^^ ^^i?' ^^X^Vt^^P^v (see my Comment, 
 on viii. 14, s. 294), a perfectly novel expression for the ancient 
 Q>i^«^yj-f >j^^ (comp. Ideler, Handb. d. Chrouol. I. 483), &c. 
 
 Next come the books written shortly after the captivity — the 
 books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, all of 
 which bear the character of the corrupt Hebrew. The most peculiar, 
 both as to contents and form, is Ecclesiastes. In the first instance, 
 it must certainly be observed in reference to this book (what has 
 commonly been overlooked),^ that as it bears the imitative character 
 common to its age, it contains much that is common to the writ- 
 ings of Solomon, and must be explained from these. Thus, e. gr., 
 n3!) ^i^i' ^ ^^^<^' ^^^^- X- 10 ; Prov. i. 17 ; D'l'i^p^in' Eccl. iv. 
 sVProv. vi. 10, xxiv. 33 (image of laziness) ; ^2.71 ("^^ ^^ ^^'^^ 
 favourite words in Ecclesiastes) comp. Prov. xiii. 11, xxi. 6, xxxi. 
 30 ; i^S"^P iS' o^ simply t^S"|^, calmness, yielding, Eccl. x. 4 ; 
 Prov. xiv. 30, xv. 4 ; j^'i^ri' used in the proper sense, comp. 
 Eccl. X. 1, with Prov. xviii. 4; p«)\2J> street, Eccl. xii. 4, 5; 
 
 1 For instance, by Ilartmann, in his Linguist. Einleitung in d. B. Koheleth, Winer's 
 ZcitscLr.fur Wissenscbaftl. Tlieol Bd. I. 1, s. 29, ff. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 205 
 
 Prov. vii. 8 ; Cant. iii. 2 ; pj^^J^, indolence, Eccl. x. 10 ; Prov. 
 xix. 15, comp. xxxi. 27, and the so frequently occurring n'i^5i?n 
 ^^j^, delights of love, Eccles. ii. 8; Cant. vii. 7, ii. 8 ; the same 
 play on words in 'q]^ and I'q'^, Eccl. vii. 1 ; Cant. i. 3. It is 
 evident that the writer, formed by the study of Solomon's writings, 
 has attached himself to him in many things, which is attested also 
 by their differences, such as nt^?:2> hundred times, Prov. xvii. 10; 
 n^^Q' Eccl. viii. 12 (the latter is the later feminine-form.^) With 
 its contemporaries also this book has much in common, as 'r^^ if 
 vi. 6, Esth. vii. 14 ; ^ni' ^^ hasten, (Esth., Chron.) ; 'ny), time, 
 iii. 1 (Neh., Esth., Dan.), ■^]-\'i^ besides xii. 12, Esth. vi. 6 ; 
 tli'^'TO' "• 8, v. 7 ; t5^\jj, to rule, ii. 19, viii. 9 ; ^^^,'Dooy, ii. 19, 
 
 T • : — T XT 
 
 vii. 17, &c. (so likewise with Jeremiah.^) Further, this book con- 
 tains a multitude of expressions quite peculiar to itself, some of 
 which have a philosophical tinge, and all of which partake of a 
 peculiar cast ; hence, e.gr., the unusual number of abstract forms, 
 the frequent usage of ^jj'i, to denote the peculiar being or essence of 
 a thing, and its opposite •j'l^ ; also the expressions 7^17, I'i'^n''. 
 
 comp. tJmbreit, Coheleth scepticus de summo bono, p. 112. Much 
 is the result of the intruding Aramaic, which the author in part in^ 
 vests with a Hebraistic garb, in part simply adopts ; thus the 
 words -);25' lintlJS. t^^H''. (comp. Ewald, s. 158), y^*)?!, x. 8; 
 1T2 V'^'^' ^^' ^^' ^tO^' ^^* ^' ^^' Hence it may not unjustly be 
 said that some parts approach closely to the talmudic-rabbinical 
 usage (Gesenius, Gesh. s. 3G), at least we have here a sort of 
 transition to it.s 
 
 1 Not at all the status constr., as Hartmann, Lib. cit. s. 57, opines. 
 
 2 The number of instances collected under this head by Hartmann, is much too large ; 
 see lib. cit., s. 52, ff. 
 
 3 [These remarks on the language of Ecclesiastes, appear to me unworthy of the author, 
 and find a sufficient refutation in bis previous strictures upon the attempts of the 
 Eationalists, to assign a late origin to Job and Canticles. Surely the resemblance of 
 the style of Ecclesiastes to that of the Solomonic writings, is strongly in favour of 
 the ordinary opinion, that this also is a production of the royal sage. The fact also that 
 some of the alleged Aramaic words are conformed to the Hebrew, may well suggest 
 grave doubt as to the author's reasoning ; for surely it is just as probable that these are 
 ancient forms of pure Hebrew words, as that they are later words invested with an 
 Archaic form. Of the words which Haveruick has specified as Aramaic, I doubt whether 
 
206 HISTOllY OF THE 
 
 The greatest corruption, however, of ilie Hebrew is exhibited 
 when the language of the people, the commonly so-called Chaldaic, 
 was adopted by the writers, as from various occasions is sometimes 
 the case: Jerem. x. 11 ; Dan. ii. 4 — 7, 2R ; Ezra iv. 8 — vi. 18, 
 vii. 12 — 26. Some of this is doubtless to be attributed to a Baby- 
 lonian idiotism (see on this above), but the greater part is a ming- 
 ling of the Aramaic with the Hebrew. Here the Hebrew frequently 
 has been preserved in a manner quite opposed to the Aramaic ; e. f/r. 
 in the placing of the article, the decided clearer pronunciation of 
 the vowels, the doubling of the non-gutturals, the use of the Dual- 
 form, the passive formations, Hofal, &c. But just as strong and 
 significant is the correspondence of this dialect with the Aramaic, 
 and the anti-Hebraic element thence resulting; e. f/r. the want of 
 vowels in the word-forms, the status emphaticus, the '^ as a mark of 
 the accusative, the formation of the passive by the syllable ]-\^, 
 &c. The chief distinction between the biblical and the later tar- 
 gumic (see ch. iv.) Chaldee, consists just in this mode of composi- 
 tion, since in the latter the Hebrew element is decidedly more de- 
 pressed.^ The Patois which thus arose is in the Canonical writ- 
 ings perfectly harmonious, because of the proximity in age of the 
 writers, who have preserved it to us. Not without justice has it 
 been said (see De Wette, Einl., s. 332), that this idiom must be 
 fluctuating ; and this is shown especially in the fluctuating forma- 
 tions of the words chiefly used as, e. rjr., the pronouns (thus the 
 forms : 'rj^, pr^, p, Tj^, is5"l-p^t^, Tl^^^.-Q^V DH^' php^)' 
 
 any of them can be proved to be such. '^33 is a pure Hebrew word signifying length, 
 and tbe peculiarity of its use in Ecclesiastes is tbat (like many sucli nouns in all 
 languages), it is used adverbially to signify long since ; ^^-i(U2 occurs only in Ecclesiastes, 
 but I can see no reason for rejjarding it as Aramaic, it seems to be a perfectly regular 
 Hebrew formation from '-c3 ; s'tt"* is certainly an Aramaic looking form, but may not tbe 
 S be paragogic to tbe apocopated future "ini ? (so Dr Lee explains tbe word, Heb. Gr., 
 p. 251, ed. 1844) ; yttij occurs only in Ecclesiastes, but it is not Aramaic; it is the 
 Hebrew word to which the Syr. Gnmotss and the Ch. Gumtsa correspond, the root of 
 all being vm ; p "ph is undoubtedly a siugular usage, but it is not Aramaic, and there 
 seems nothing more unhebraic in the use ciiyi^ after yih, than in the use of ^ after it, 
 as in Gen. xix. 16, xxiv. 11, &c. ; ^t:a, for ought that appears to the contrary, is pure 
 Hebrew — that it is not exclusively Aramaic, is evident from its existing in both the 
 Arabic and the Ethiopio (see Geseuius, Lex. sub. voc.) I cannot but regret that Dr 
 H., usually so sound in his reasonin;,' on such subjects, should have allowed himself, 
 on what appears to me such perfectly untenable grounds, to depart from the time-honoured 
 belief of the Church of God as to the age of this book. — Tr.] 
 1 See the examples in Hengstenberg's Beitvage,s. 303, 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 207 
 
 and such a fluctuation is even in the Biblical Chaldee so far ap- 
 parent, that we find, for instance, in the same verse, Jer. x. II, 
 the forms t^^pii^ and t^i^'ii^-^ 
 
 Never, however, did this corruption of the Hebrew proceed so 
 far, that the more cultivated persons who were intrusted with the 
 older writings, ceased to understand the documents written in pure 
 Hebrew, or in using them fell into the most remarkable mistakes. 
 Traces of such ignorance, recent critics have sought to discover in 
 the books of Chronicles.^ In itself truly a most unlikely circum- 
 stance ! The chronicler does not write, as De Wette expresses it, 
 " the worst Hebrew that we have ;" this is a superficial judgment, 
 which a careful comparison of this book with Ezekiel or Ecclesi- 
 astes will immediately confute. This author, moreover, is distin- 
 guished by a great or extended study of the sources; so that it is 
 not to be supposed that he was so ignorant as the arbitrary hyper- 
 criticism has reproached him with being. The passages adduced 
 by Gesenius by no means substantiate such a judgment. Thus 
 ^t2?i^ (Tamarisk), 1 Sam. xxxi. 13, is incorrectly interpreted, it is 
 said, by n^^^ (Terebinth), in Chron. x. 12. But n7i«% signifies 
 TerehinthoxAy where it is distinguished from other trees (Is. vi. 11); 
 elsewhere, especially in the later usage, it denotes treeiw general, as 
 in the Aram. ^^i^. The " Tamarisk of Jabesh" might as well, on ac- 
 count of its celebrity, be called the " Tree of Jabesh," as the Tere- 
 binth of Sechem is called. Gen. xxxv. 4, j-f^^, Josh. xxiv. 26, '^^, 
 Judges ix. 6, '^'^. — The words ni^!J72n~7i^ l")*'"!- " (David) went 
 up to the top of the hill," 2 Sam. v. 17, are not, it is alleged, rightly re- 
 presented in meaningby the words DH'^^DT' i^I^'^l' ^ ^^^- ^^^- '^* ^^^ 
 the passage is altogether erroneously rendered by Gesenius ; it can 
 only mean " he ascended (from the rocks of Hebron, in order to 
 return) to his citadel,"^ Jllli^TlSn' ^^^^ citadel of Zion mentioned 
 
 1 Very strange, however, is the inference De Wette would deduce from this, that in 
 consequence of such a fluctuation, if Daniel were genuine, there would be a greater 
 difference between Daniel and Ezra. In both of these, it is true, the same fluctuation is 
 found between diff'erent forms. But the assumption founded on that, that the (supposed) 
 late author of the book of Daniel has imitated the language of Ezra, is altogether incredi- 
 ble. In this case, he would have attached himself exclusively to the old Hebrew. Who 
 imitates with such exactness in a living and popular language an earlier writer! 
 
 2 De Wette, Beitrage z. Einl. I., s. 67. Gesenius, Geseh., s, 40, fif. 
 
 3 Comp. e. gr. Gen. xlii. 28 ; 1 Sam. xxii. 2, and just so "trepidare ad arcem,"in Sal- 
 lust .Tug., c. 67. 
 
208 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 vers. 7 and 9.^ As the clironicler has not mentioned the citadel of 
 Zion immediately before (see ch. xi.), he could not, with due 
 regard to perspicuity, use these words here, and consequently was 
 obliged to exchange them for another expression. — 2 Sam. v. 24, 
 V"^n^ 'j^, "make haste then," is said to be misunderstood, 1 Chr. 
 xiv. 15, where we read n^^nSTSl fc^iJri t^- -^^^ V'^tl ^^ ^^^^® ^^^° 
 in effect a military term: "hasten to the slaughter;" comp. the 
 Arab. ^ ^ conj. II. instigavit accendilque ad imgnam. — 2 
 
 Sam. viii. 1, " David took ntSb^H yp^ Hhi- ^^® Arm-bridle from 
 the hand of the Philistines," i.e., he brought them under his domi- 
 nion, which is supposed to be incompatible with " David took Gath 
 and her daughters," i.e., the surrounding villages, 1 Chr. xviii. 1. 
 But the former passage literally rendered is, " David took the rein 
 of dominion out of the hand of the Philistines" (see Hitzig on Is., 
 s. 63) ; the chronicler simply adds from his sources a more definite 
 description of the thing done. — 2 Sam. xxiii. 11, Q'^tlJ'Ti^' ^ G\y^' 
 xi. 13, D^'^'i^ty, Lentils — Barley. But the entire narrative in 
 these passages betokens diversity of sources, and this difference, 
 moreover, far removed from containing a contradiction, is easily 
 explainable. — Special stress is laid on the alleged contradic- 
 tion between 1 Kings x. 13 and 2 Chr. ix. 12.^ But the former 
 of these passages has been misunderstood ; it is to be rendered 
 thus : Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba all that she desired 
 and requested, over and above what he had already sent her after 
 the royal fashion^ of Solomon, i.e., what he had to give as a kingly 
 remuneration for the gifts sent to him according to the usage of 
 oriental princes, to which the Persian principle of hihbvai [laXKov 
 rj Xa/ji^dveiv alludes. According to this, the chronicler has per- 
 fectly understood the passage. — 1 Kings x. 14, ^'^^n "^^Sq '^ ^^ 
 
 1 This is the only philologically just explanation of the passage. Nevertheless 
 Movers, iib. d. Chron. s. 208, has misunderstood it. The war of David happened during 
 the interval between his occupation of Jerusalem and the establishment of his residence 
 there. 
 
 2 Which Keil also could not explain (s. 42), and Movers reduces altogether arbitrarily 
 (s. 213, ff.) 
 
 3 "^ran Tis prop, according to the might of the King, a dignified expression for, in a 
 kingly manner; comp. Esth. i. 7, ii. 18. 
 
 4 Comp. the passage of Thucydides in Brissonius De reg. Pers. princip., p. 625, edit. 
 1710. 
 
OraCINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 209 
 
 2 Chr. ix. 14 correctly described more exactly by ^«^^ ''I^^TIS' foi' 
 others cannot be intended in this passage.^ On 2 Kings xxii. 
 17 compared with 2 Chr. xxxiv. 21, Gesenius charges the chro- 
 nicler with not understanding the expression, " my wrath will be 
 kindled," since he uses for it, "my wrath will be poured forth," and 
 yet he makes the unsuitable addition, " and will not be quenched." 
 But the chronicler understood the etymology here better than 
 Gesenius, since he retains the n^lDH (properly, as is well known, heat, 
 anger, fury ^ to which his addition suits exactly.— 2 Kings xxii. 
 13, comp. 2 Chr. xxxiv. 21, is said to prove that the phrase i^jl^ 
 ~~)^, to prescribe to one, was not understood by the chronicler, be- 
 cause he has omitted the ^^^i^^. But the meaning is in both pas- 
 sages the same. 
 
 After the captivity, several writers nevertheless laboured to re- 
 produce a purer Hebrew. As the use of earlier writers increased, 
 the formal complement was more closely fitted to the previously 
 existing. So is it especially with the prophets Haggai, Malachi, 
 Zechariah ; with the later of whom hardly anything Aramaic 
 occurs (see Hengstenberg, Beitriige, s. 372), and only occasion- 
 ally traces of a later usage, such as the scriptio plena "yi')'^, the 
 h*)*?)^, ix. 7, xii. 5 (comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. II., s. 282, fF.) 
 At the utmost there may be ascribed to them a certain want of con- 
 cinnity of expression ; comp. Eichhorn, Einl. IV., s. 467, fF. 
 
 § 85. CESSATION OF THE HEBREW AS A POPULAR LANGUAGE. 
 
 In ascertaining how it fared with the Hebrew as a written lan- 
 guage in the post- exilian literature, we have still left unanswered the 
 question, How long did it sustain itself as a living popular speech ? 
 This question is different from the former, and has been answered 
 in a double manner. Already the older Jewish grammarians, such 
 as Kimchi, Ephodaeus, Elias Levita, assumed very decidedly that 
 the decay of the Hebrew language was simultaneous with the cap- 
 tivity.^ They have been followed by some Christian theologians, as 
 
 1 Incorrect, therefore, are the hypotheses of Keil, s. 298, and Movers, s. 246. 
 
 2 See the passages in Buxtorf, Dissertt. PhiL Theol., p. 158. 
 
 3 Ephodaeus, for instance, says : " in validissimam obliviouem devenit, utproperaodum 
 illius menioria perierit praeter id quod de ilia reperitur in Scripturis Sacris." 
 
 O 
 
210 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Walton, Prolegg., p. 94, sq., Dalhe, Buxtovf, I.e., &c., and this view 
 has of late found able supporters in Hengsteuberg, Beitr., s. 299, fF., 
 and Keil, Apologet. Versuch lib. d. Chronik., s. 39, ff. From various 
 motives both older theologians (such as Barth. Mayer, Phil. Sac. 
 P. IT., p. 95, sq., Loscher, De Caus. L. Heb., p. G7, Alting, 0pp. 
 v., p. 195, Pfeiffer. 0pp. II., p. 864, sq., &c.), and more recent 
 ones (as Hezel, Gesch. d. Heb. Spr., s. 48, fF., Gesenius, Gesch., s. 
 44, ff., De Wette, Einl. s. 64), have maintained the opposite. It is 
 supposed by them that the language gradually disappeared from the 
 tongues of the people; and that consequently it was still cultivated 
 at least as a written language, even so late as the time of the Mac- 
 cabees. The reasons adduced for this opinion, which the reader 
 will find most ably set forth by Carpzov, Grit. Sacr., p. 214, sq. 
 Simonis, Introd. p. 83, and Gesenius, are however so far from being 
 decisive, that we feel constrained on the whole to adopt the former 
 view. 
 
 It has appeared to some as if nothing short of a miracle could 
 have made the Jews, within so short a space of time, forget their 
 mother tongue, especially as many who returned to their father- 
 land had been born before the captivity (Ezr. iii. 12.) But in vain 
 is search made for any fitting moment in the post-exilian period, at 
 which the change of language can have been introduced. The ob- 
 stinate attachment of the Jews to externals, and among the rest to 
 their vernacular tongue,^ is so vouched for in this period that it 
 immediately refutes such an hypothesis. For that the capture of 
 Palestine by Ptolemy Lagi could have created such an influence on 
 the Jews there that they " unlearned the Hebrew," as Hezel thinks, 
 s. 49, one cannot conceive to be possible; the conclusion is purely 
 arbitrary. — Certainly, however, it must, in reference to the period in 
 question, be well observed, that already before the exile the Chaldee 
 had begun to intrude, whence it is more easy to explain how, dur- 
 ing closer relations with Babylon, this must have gained the upper 
 hand. This is clearly apparent from the character of Jeremiah as 
 a writer, especially from the passage x. 11. The mode in which 
 
 1 Comp. only the expressious, in which (special weight is laid on the fact that the 
 prayer of Judas Maccabeus before the commencement of the slaughter wa? spoken in the 
 vernacular language as opposed to the Greek {Karap^d/xtvoi Ttj -n-aTpico (pwvri t})v ntd' 
 vuvtov Kpavyvv, 2 Macc, xii. 37), or the summonses to constancy (2 Mace, vii. 8, 21, 
 2i, 27.) 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 211 
 
 the Aramaic is introduced ("thus shall tljou say unto them") shows 
 that already this had been received as the popular idiom. 
 
 With no greater justice has an appeal been made to the circum- 
 stance that post-exilian writers still made use of the Hebrew, on the 
 ground that it is at least not probable that they would use in popular 
 writings a wholly strange language. But just as well could these be 
 explained to the people by the priests and the prophets as the older 
 documents. At no time from the written language can we decide in 
 this way as to the popular language ; and here so much the less, 
 since the affiance of the later writers to the older models is demon- 
 strable. 2 — On the other hand, however, it is an unaccountable cir- 
 cumstance how the Chaldee sections of Daniel and Ezra should have 
 been inserted had not this become the language of the people : it is 
 not the older Hebrew, but this newly occurring idiom that needs to 
 be explained, and this can be done only in the way alleged. 
 
 Stress is laid on Neh. xiii. 24 as proving that at that time the 
 Hebrew was still spoken. But the term ji'^i^n*' ^^ throughout re- 
 lative ; as in 2 Kings xviii. 20 it stands opposed to the Aramaic, 
 and thence denotes the Hebrew, so here in opposition to particu- 
 lar dialects, to the idiom of Ashdod, it denotes the language then 
 spoken by the Jews, the Chaldaic. The term n'^?;^*^^ could not, 
 however, be used here, because the other dialects were also Ara- 
 maic, and hence ]-)^"y?in"' furnished the only fitting term of dis- 
 tinction. 
 
 In fine, appeal has been made to Neh. viii. andx., where all that 
 relates to the public worship was conducted in the Hebrew tongue, 
 particularly the reading of the Law. Bat all here is explained by 
 Neh. viii. 8, where we read, " They (the priests and Levites) read 
 in the book, in the Law of God \iJ"^C7^, and appended thereto the 
 sense, and explained what was read." The Syriac version renders 
 
 1 "Chaldaice hie vs. coiiceptus ut Judaeis suggerat, quomodo Cbaldaeis, ad quos 
 iionuisi Clialdaiot- loqiii poteraut, pinicis verbis respondendum sit," rightly remarks Seb. 
 Schmidon this passage. For the assumption of Venema, that the verse is spurious, or 
 that of Hensler (Bemerklv. iib. Jereni., s. 21, if.) that it was written first in Hebrew, and 
 afterwards translated into Ai-amaic, is utterly arbitrary and needless. 
 
 2 Cum scriberent historiam aut prophetiasad Judaeos pertinentes volnerunt uti eadem 
 lingua, qua priscao eorum historiae et proplietiae jam fuerant conscriptae, si excipias 
 pauca quaedam loca ad res Chaldaeorum aut Persarum pertinentia. Clericus ad Nehem. 
 xiii. 24. 
 
 O 2 
 
212 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 t2?12D ^y '^Vr-^r^, fideliier , and so Geseiiins, ivordfor ivorJ, ex- 
 actly. But this meaning is attached to ^-^q quite arbitrarily ; it 
 signifies ah'eady in the Pentateuch to separate, to explain, expli- 
 care, Lev. xxiv. 21 ; Num. xv. 34 ; and so the Syr. ^^-t^, e. gr. 
 Ephraem. Syr. T. p. 239, c, in the Talmud ^"^"^iQ, explicatio 
 (Hartmann, Thes. Ling. Heb. &c., p. 84.) Hence ^^qq can mean 
 only adjecta explicaiiune. But from the context it appears that 
 this " explicatio" could not consist in the elucidation of difficulties, 
 and practical applications, for reference is inade to this specially in 
 what follows ; butin the translation of the textinto the current speech. 
 This also is undoubtedly an explicatio, interpretatio, just as t2}"^Q is 
 used in Ezra iv. 18 of the translation of Aramaic (comp. iv. 7) into 
 Persic. Even so throughout the term Q^'^jr) is used for to explain, 
 express, and translate. Comp. Ezra iv. 7, and on the Syriac 
 usage von Lengerke de Ephraemo Syr. p. 121, note. Accordingly 
 the Talmudists have already correctly explained our passage (see 
 Walton, p. 564) Di^"^;^ nf tyiQj;^ ' ^^^ ^^ ^^^ Kambach, Cle- 
 ricus, Dathe/ &c. Thus this passage clearly proves that in the 
 time of Nehemiah the Hebrew was not known by the people, and 
 that a translation of the text was needed by them. — On the coins 
 of the Maccabean age there still appear some old Hebrew phrases, 
 but at the same time with Aramaic words beside them (see Kopp, 
 Bilder und Schr. II. 225, fF.), which consequently does not prove 
 that in this age they wrote only Hebrew ; this ceased of itself with 
 the closinff of the Canon.^ 
 
 § 30. TRADITION-PERIOD OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE TILL IT WAS 
 TREATED GRAMMATICALLY IN THE TENTH CENTURY. 
 
 It is chiefly among the Jews of Palestine that we are to seek the 
 preservation of the knowledge of the Hebrew language. Though 
 the Hebrew ceased to be even a written language, yet for practical 
 
 1 Also Nagel, in a Dissertation specially devoted to tbis passage, Altorf. 1772; comp. 
 Hirt, Orient, und Exeget. Bibl. III. s. 141, ff. 
 
 2 Even till the most recent times forms of prayer in pure Hebrew were in use among 
 the Jews, but out of mere reverence for the ancient and the holy, without the people's 
 uiiderstaudi)ig them. Comp. Jost, Gesch. d. Israeliten III. 1-13, and Anhaug, s. 157. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2!8 
 
 ends in the usages of worship the study of the old Hebrew docu- 
 ments became for them an indispensable duty, for which the affinity 
 of the language they used must have afforded them peculiar facili- 
 ties. Hence as early as the book of Sirach mention is made of the 
 study of Scripture as the chief and fairest occupation of the jpctfi- 
 fjiaTev<i, the htavoeladai iv vofiw vyjrlaTOV, and ao(j)Lav iruviwv ap- 
 -^aicov €K^r]ri]<Tet,, koI ev 7rpo(pr]Telat,<i dcr^oXrjOtjaeTat (xxxix. 1, ff.) 
 That their number was, even in the time of the Maccabees, not 
 small, appears from the passage 1 Mace. vii. 12. Also the intru- 
 sion of the Greek language into Palestine under the followers of 
 Alexander the Great, though it came even to be received as the 
 language of literature, and was intelligible to many of the people, j 
 nevertheless impeded nothing less than the use of the Chaldee as 
 the popular tongue and the study of the Hebrew. On the con- 
 trary, long before the time of Christ, there flourished schools in 
 which the study and interpretation of the Scriptures formed matter 
 of special occupation, and which were thence called t2J")*lt2n '^i^S' 
 also 12^-^ '^p\2 a.nd ji'ili'itlji-" They lasted even after the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, and flourished not only in Palestine at the town 
 of Tiberias, which has the reputation of the purest tradition, Jam- 
 nia, Lydda, Csesarea, Ziphoria, but also in Babylon on the Eu- 
 phrates, in Sora, Pumpeditha, Nahardea.^ To their labours are 
 due in part the Targums, but principally the Talmud and the Ma- 
 sorah. The grammatical study of the Hebrew nevertheless cannot 
 be properly looked for in them ; they were devoted rather to the 
 deduction of theological and juridical definitions from Scripture, i.nd 
 the preservation of earlier traditions appertaining thereto. It is 
 among tlie Masorites that the first certain effort towards gramma- 
 tical principles is visible, but, after all, their criticism and interpre- 
 tation does not proceed beyond the common crudely empirical and 
 traditional (see on this ch. iii.) 
 
 Whatever elsewhere, among the Hellenistic Jews, the Samaritans, 
 and especially among the Christians, is found of knowledge of the 
 Hebrew language, must be referred back to these sources. Origen 
 
 1 Comp. Pfankuche, iib. d. Palaest. Landesspr. iu d. Zeitalter Cbrisli, iu Eicliborn's 
 Biblioth. VIII. 365 [traosliited in Biblical Cabinet, vol. ii. p. 1], and tbe tract of Wise- 
 man (who takes the just medium) iu bis Hor. Syr. I. 69. 
 
 iJ Comp. Hartmanu, die euge Verbiud. des A. und N. T. s. 384, fl. 
 
 ■> See Buxtorf, Tiberias cap. .5. 
 
214 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 (comp. Jerome adv. Ruffia. I. 3) and Jerome, the most distin- 
 guished among the fathers as Hebraists, were indebted for their in- 
 sight to the guidance and teaching of Palestinian Jews. The less 
 any one followed them, the more imperfect appears his knowledge 
 of Hebrew. Attempts in this department, which at bottom are ra- 
 ther of an exegetical kind, and during this entire period never 
 reached to a grammatical handling of the language, belong on this 
 account rather to the History of the Interpretation of Scripture 
 than to our present subject. 
 
 § 37. PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AMONG 
 
 THE JEWS. 
 
 The different branches of science which were cultivated among 
 the Jews until the tenth century owed their introduction chiefly to 
 outward influences and events which the Jews could not withstand. 
 The influence of the age on an almost servile people was so mighty, 
 that it is easy to account for the lively zeal which they showed to 
 compete with those around them in these performances and under- 
 takings by producing on their own part something equal or at least 
 similar. Thus the rise of the Talmud, and the formation of the 
 Jewish jurisprudence, may be most probably traced to the influence 
 of the Roman study of jurisprudence.^ So also the studies of the 
 Text and the efl"orts of the Masorites were occasioned by the ana- 
 logous attempts of the Arabs (comp. ch. iii.) Under this latter in- 
 fluence also awoke the desire to rebuild the grammar of the He- 
 brew, and from this they were encouraged to expect fruit the more 
 that they had before them the model of a grammar and lexicon of 
 a cognate dialect. To the same result it was conducive that, whilst 
 the eastern Jews lived in oppressed circumstances, and their schools 
 decayed through the persecutions of the Muhammedans and internal 
 discord, those of the West, the Jews of Spain, enjoyed a happy re- 
 pose, had become acquainted with Arabic poetry, and found an 
 increasing pleasure in their literature.^ Already the Rabbins Saa- 
 diah, from Egypt (died 942), and Adonim Ben Taniim, who had 
 laboured in the Babylonian schools, were celebrated as famous 
 
 1 See Jost's Geschich.der Israel. IV. s, 101, ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Jost. lib. cit. Bd. VI. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 215 
 
 grammaiiaus, though io the latter the mixing of the Hebrew with 
 the Arabic is blamed/ The work of ueither is now extant. From 
 the other remaining writings of Saadiah, E. Simon (Hist. crit. 1. c. 
 30) would conclude that he followed cabbalistic subtleties. Saadiah 
 made the first attempt at a Lexicon of which we know anything, 
 inasmuch as he collected seventy difficult words, explained them in 
 Arabic, and compared them witli the Talmudic (see Gesenius, 
 Vorrede, s. 16. 
 
 An advance seems to have been made by R. Jonah Ben Chiug 
 from Fez, whom, on this account, the Jews call Q'^p'Tplt^ntl^i^'^' 
 principem grammaticorum (Wolf, Hist. Lex. Heb., p. 20, sq.) In 
 his grammar the subject is handled in four books, and he appears 
 especially to have established the doctriue of quiescent letters and 
 the contracted stems. From the extracts given by li. Simon (Lib. 
 cit. c. 31), and Morinus (Execritt. Bibl. IL, p. 431, sq.), he ap- 
 pears to have corrected many unfounded and erroneous views 
 among his cotemporaries, and brought them back to more correct 
 principles. His works were translated from the Arabic into He- 
 brew, and lie still in a mauuscript form in the libraries of Oxford 
 and Paris. — In the beginning of the eleventh century, Menachem 
 Ben Saruk wrote the first comprehensive, though still far from 
 complete Dictionary (see Gesenius, loc. cit.) More remarkable 
 are the grammatical and lexicographical labours of his contem- 
 porary, Jonah Ben Gannach (Abulwalid), a physician at Cordova. 
 His Grammar is already arranged according to the three parts of 
 speech, and is divided into seven books. Still more weighty is his 
 
 lexicographical work written in Arabic, )^*a')i\ i__)La.^> Root- 
 hook. Pococke, in his writings, and more especially Gesenius, 
 have made great use of this, and largely extracted from it. Beside 
 him stands by right Judah Ben Karish of Fez, also author of an 
 Arabic Dictionary (see the extracts by Schnurrer in Eichhorn's Bibl. 
 in., s. 951 — 980.) In this last-named writer we find a great 
 veneration for Jewish tradition, especially the interpretation of the 
 Targums, and this is carried so far as to lead to an undervaluing of 
 the linguistic worth of the Chaldee for the understanding of the 
 
 1 Aben Esra has the most oiu-efiilly cmimenued the principal grammaiiaus in his 
 Sepher Mosnaim ; see Jost, VI. s. 1.5i, 368. The Historico-liternry notices pertaining 
 hereto are to be found in Bartoloi-ei, Biblioth. Rabbin., Buxtorf, Bibl. Rabbin., Wolf, 
 Bibl. Ilebr., Koclier, Nova Bib. Heb. 
 
2J6 ' HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Hebrew (see Schnurrer. s. 954, flf.) There were some, however, 
 who went beyond this point, and attained to a more free and many- 
 sided treatmont of the Hebrew, having at their command so many 
 remains of the Talmudic, which contains the ancient language, and 
 the Arabic, their mother tongue. The historical connection of 
 these was developed very well by Judah Ben Karish, who separated 
 and combined the proper Hebrew, and what in it was allied to the 
 Aramaic and the Arabic. So much was the comparison of the 
 Hebrew with the dialects furthered by these labours, that it found 
 from that time forward ever- widening acknowledgment.^ 
 
 Passing over other Rabbinical grammarians known to us for the 
 most part only by uame,^ we name here only from the eleventh 
 century Jarchi, author of a Grammar (qit^^^ lltlJT'' comp. Wolf, 
 Bibl. I. 1057), from the twelfth the acute Abenezra, author of 
 several grammatical works (Wolf, Hist., p. 71), Salomo Parchon, 
 author of a dictionary written in Hebrew, Joseph and Moses 
 Kimchi. The chief distinction belongs to David Kimchi, Ben 
 Juseph K. at the end of the twelfth century. He wrote a Grammar 
 i^^yiy) and Lexicon (Qi\iJ"^\2J ^SD-) ^^^^^ ^^^ French school 
 appears to have always had a more stationary character, and one 
 more restricted to the earlier tradition, as appears in a singularly 
 spiritless manner in Jarchi (comp. Jost, VI. 243, ff.) Kimchi fol- 
 lows almost exclusively Abulwalid ; nevertheless he exhibits an 
 exact study of the Bible and copious collections ; what one chiefly 
 misses is, particularly in the Lexicon, a befitting arrangement 
 (Wolf, Hist., p. 41.) His work has more frequently than any of the 
 others been printed, as even the Christian scholars of a later period 
 followed him chiefly and translated him.^ — After him the philolo- 
 gical studies of the Jewish scholars rather fell off than increased. 
 Joseph Caspi attempted to refer the words to a comrnon ground- 
 meaning ; as a grammarian appeared Ephodaeus (prop. Isaac 
 Ben Moseh ; the other name he derived from his work, ntoi^ZD 
 T[*IQ^, not printed, but often cited by Morinus and Buxtorf.) He 
 greatly praised Abulwalid, and held him the best grammarian 
 
 ^ Comp. e. qr. Maimonides ap. Casiri, Bibl. Escurial, I. 292. 
 
 •> See on them Jost, VI. 152. 
 
 3 Here is the judgmeut ofFagiuson Kimchi's Lexicon: neseio vere an unquam liber 
 in Hebr. lingua a quoiiuam mortali scriptus sit, qui eo plus prodesse possit, omnibus 
 solide Hebraizari cnpientibus. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 217 
 
 (Hettinger, Bibl. Orient., p. 42) ; on the contrary, he is a decided 
 opponent of D. Kimchi, and seems to have duly appreciated these 
 decreases of scientific investigation. " Est ahqua huic homini," says 
 Loscher, p. 103, " et critica propemodum audacia, neque adeo, 
 semper ejus novitatibas habenda fides." Still greater fame ac- 
 crued to the German Elias Levita (died 1549)), named by way of 
 eminence the grammarian, and the teacher of many Christian the- 
 ologians (Fagius, Miinster, &c.) ; he enriched Hebrew philology 
 with many valuable writings. There can be no doubt that both as 
 respects insight into the materials, and his mode of handhng his 
 subject, as well as in the development of much appertaining to the 
 history of the language, he was helped by his constant intercourse 
 with Christian scholars, who, in return, received from him increased 
 knowledge, and were indeed his pupils" (Jost, VIII. 195.) For 
 an admirable estimate of his labours, see Loscher, p. 154, sq. 
 His principal works are observations on the Grammar of Moses 
 Kimchi (edited by L'Empereur 1631), -^inin "^DD (^ copious 
 Grammar, edited and translated by Miinster, Basel 1525), '^^'\^p\ 
 (a copious explanation of the diflicult words of Scripture and 
 of the Talmud; Lat. by Fagius 1541, 4to), &c., comp. Wolf, 
 Hist., p. 57, sq. 
 
 The services of these Jewish scholars towards a roore methodical 
 and fundamental treatment of the Hebrew are certainly, when 
 viewed in connection with the uncertainty^ which before them pre- 
 vailed in this respect, very important. They closely followed the 
 Arabian grammarians, and borrowed from them method and tech- 
 nical expressions," but they were also thereby hindered from pene- 
 trating into the peculiarity of the Hebrews ; hence they seldom 
 investigated deeply into particulars, and in consequence of their 
 rude empirical method, often fell into mistakes. Their lexical 
 labours are in general of more value than their grammatical, for 
 the syntax was as good as entirely unformed, and in etymology the 
 unsoundest principles (as e. gr. as to the nature of vowels) operated 
 to their disadvantage (see Loscher, p. 154.) 
 
 1 As Kimchi well describes it in bis Pref. to Micblol; comp. Hottinger, Smegma Ovi- 
 entale, p. 109, from wbicb, however, there cannot be inferred a complete decline of the 
 pure tradition before them, as Simon and others assert; see l.oschpr, p. 90 ; Orseii. 
 Gescb. s. 94. 
 
 2 Comp. Hottiiitrer, Smeg. Or. p. 110, bq. 
 
218 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 § 38. PHILOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE HEBREW AMONG CHRISTIAN 
 SCHOLARS. — FIRST PERIOD, SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 With the more general study of antiquity/ which preceded the Re- 
 formation, and received a new impulse from it, there began also 
 amongst the Christians the revival of a more hvely interest in the 
 study of the original languages of the Old Testament. As early as 
 1503 there appeared a Hebrew Grammar by Conrad Pellican (de 
 modo legendi et intelligeudi Hebraea), which the author, whilst a 
 monk in Tubingen, and only 22 years of age, had composed without 
 any help but that of a Hebrew Bible, and a Latin translation."'^ A 
 much greater impulse, however, was given to this study by the great 
 Reuchlin, the pupil of the Rabbins, whose three books, De rudi- 
 mentis Hebraicis, embracing a Grammar and a Lexicon, appeared at 
 Pforzheim in 1506, in folio. "Breviaet levia praecepta," says he, p. 
 650, " dabo et simul clara. Quod ante me fecit nemo." He follows 
 closely David Kimchi. He is, however, the originator of the gramma- 
 tical termini, which have since him found general reception (as con- 
 jugatio, status absolutus, et regiminis, verba imperfecta, quies- 
 ceutia, &c.), and for which his classical education admirably fitted 
 him. The Syntax is, however, imperfectly treated by him, and in 
 his Lexicon he gives only the stem- words fully.^ 
 
 The dependence upon the Rabbins, in which the juncture of 
 circumstances placed these founders of the study of Hebrew, gave 
 rise also to a Tradition-epoch with them, in which, what had been 
 emperically learned, was in the same way retained and propagated.* 
 Thus Sebastian Miinster followed closely Elias Levita ; S. Pagni- 
 nus in his Institutiones Ebr. gave only extracts from Abulwaiid, 
 Abenezra, Kimchi, Ephodaeus, without using any effort of his own 
 to increase or reconstruct their materials, (Loscher. p. 157.) A 
 still further hold was given to this method, by the rise of Buxtorf 
 
 1 Corap, Gieseler, KGescli,, II. 4, s. 502, flF. 
 
 2 See Scbnurrer, Bioar. uud Literar. Nachrichten vou ehemal. Lebrern d. Heb, Spr. 
 in Tubingen, s. 4. 
 
 3 See Hirt, Oriental, u. Exeget. Bibl. I. 31, ff. 
 
 * Scbultens bas keenly and severely described tbis tendency in bis Origines Hebr., 
 p. 290, sq., wbere be concludes : et f'uere tamen semperque exstituri forte tam summisai 
 miratores devotique amatores Rabbinoruni, ut ultra eos sapere reciiseiit alque^ne latum 
 quidem unguem ab iisdem d' flectere sustineant. 
 
 2 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 219 
 
 and his school. The Thesaurus Grammalicus Ling. Sauctae of 
 this scholar is distinguished as respects careful collection and 
 copiousness, and is still of great value ; the Syntax also is here 
 more carefully treated then previously; so also his Concordance; 
 still there is a want of any grammatical system, and but a Concord- 
 ance, not a Ijexicon. Buxtorfs most distinguished scholar was 
 Wasmuth, who paid especial attention to the vowel changes and 
 the accentuation. On the same platform stands the Philologia 
 Sacra of Glassius, in which an effort is made to enrich the Syntax. 
 Nevertheless there were even then attempts made to treat He- 
 brew philology more independently and freely. These were, bow- 
 ever, but first attempts, which never fully succeeded, from the want of 
 necessary conducting principles ; still the opposition thus raised 
 was of use. So Bibliander, of whom Loscber says, p. 158, Eab- 
 binos spernit et ex S. cod., in quo uno purum Ebraismum superesse 
 credit, eundem restaurandum putat. In the same direction laboured 
 in reference to Lexicography Reuchlin's pupil, J. Forster.^ He 
 had observed that stems formed of analogous radicals, were also 
 allied in meaning, and from this he combined much very felicitiously ; 
 still " cruda ejus conjectura erat, regulis carens et certitudinem 
 nullam admittens," says L6scher,p. 134.^ Between the correctness 
 of his principles, and the carrying out of these, there can be no re- 
 lation because of the want of all previous labours, and hence we 
 must not limit our judgment one-sidedly to the latter.* He was 
 followed especially by Avenarius, who for the most part blundered 
 in incorrect combinations of the oriental with the western. 5 
 
 1 Interesting is the manner in which he expresses himself on this head, in his Diet. 
 Heb. Nov. praef. p. 3, "in scholis et dietionariis oportet regnare non inania somnia 
 Rabbinorum, sed quantum assequi possumus, propriam ex fontibus S. S. sumtam sigui- 
 fieationem : quae semper praeluecre nobis et tauquam eolumna ignis in conspectu esse 
 debet, quod a Christianis scriptoribus hactenus non est factitatum: sed fascino Judaico 
 uui themati duo, tria, etiam plura, et quidem dissimilia tribuerunt significata, ut in tani 
 multiplici varietate nescias quae eujusvis vocis in quolibet scripturae loco propria si- 
 significatio et ita in ambiguo haereas. Cum tamen singula themata umam tantum 
 eamque propriam et principaleni habeant significationem nee plures etc. 
 
 2 Eadices quae unius organi litteras habeiit, eaiulem plerumque habere siguifica 
 tionem. 
 
 3 See also Hirt, Or. Bibl. I., s. 45, ff. 
 
 4 As has been done, e. qr. by Sc) ultens 1. cit. p. 292, sq. 
 
 5 Comp. Schultens, 1. cit. p. 293, sq. J. D. Michaelis, Mittel die Hebr, Spr. zu 
 rrlaiitern, s. 74, ff. 
 
220 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 § 39. CONTINUATION. SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. 
 
 These beginnings of a more rational study of language, could 
 succeed only on the condition of their assuming a more historical 
 character^ and by thereby drawing the study of the cognate dialects 
 within the sphere of their investigations, to direct and extend at- 
 tention upon the cognate dialectical phenomena. Such a more his- 
 torical tendency we find in the seventeenth century, in an interesting 
 conflict with a philology, which aimed at a more systematic and 
 philosophical treatment, a conflict which, in its beginnings at that 
 time, only brought out oppositions which had to await a later period 
 for their reconciliation. The scbolastico- dogmatic spirit of the age 
 made itself apparent in these linguistic studies also ; on the other 
 hand, partly through a stronger leaning to thorough historical in- 
 vestigation, partly through the pressure of its opposite, the more 
 empiric tendency assumed a more pleasing character. 
 
 Already towards the end of the sixteenth century, the study of the 
 dialects spread with greater life. By the appearance of Schindler's 
 Lexicon Pentaglotton (1012), this received a new impulse. Already 
 Lud. de Dieu had in his Grammar compared the Hebrew with the 
 Aramaic, which he thoroughly knew (1G28) ; J. H. Hottinger also 
 added to these the Arabic { also Sennert's Hypotyposis harm, 
 lingg. Or. 1653, is to be named here. In many exegetical and 
 antiquarian writings of the period this method prevails, and the 
 results to the study of Hebrew were many and great. Castell's 
 Lex. Heptaglotton (1609) is the most valuable fruit of these 
 labours, a work which has justly obtained the preference overall 
 earlier works of the kind, as respects both the Hebrew and the 
 dialects. 
 
 In opposition to these men appeared Bohle and Gousset, who in 
 a sense belonged to the school of Forster, and of whom the former 
 labours in his 13th Dissertt. de formali significatioue S. S. erueuda. 
 (Rostoch., 1637), to find unity in the diiferent stems, but has failed 
 
 1 Corap. Schiiltens, 1. cit., p. 74G; also Bruiis AnJenken an Schiiuller, in Staudlin 
 Tbeol. Bibl. Bd. VI. 
 
 2 See liisGramm. IV., lingg., harmonica— Smegma Oriontale — Etyniologii-uiu t)iieut. 
 
 3 Comi-. .r. 1). Micliaelis, Abh. von. d. Syr. Spr, s 110. fl. 
 
 3 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 221 
 
 principally from layiog an abstract aud metaphysical meaning at 
 the basis, and this determined more or less arbitrarily.^ Gousset 
 has proceeded much more prudently and profoundly in the adduc- 
 tion of his fundamental ideas in his Commentarius Ling. Hebr. 
 With him also the Hebrew is a sun which needs no other light ; 
 and so we must proceed with it, as we should with a letter written 
 in foreign characters, which we sought to decipher. The context 
 and the parallel passages, accordingly, are the means to be em- 
 ployed for finding the right meaning of a word. The chief service 
 of this school, to which also Stock's Clavis belongs, consists in the 
 closer observation of the usus loquendi of Scripture, and the merits 
 of Gousset especially, in this respect, have not received the ac- 
 knowledgment they deserve.^ 
 
 By these efforts the end was undoubtedly reached of attaching 
 weight to the variety of linguistic phenomena. But the endeavour 
 at systematic arrangement was not yet placed upon the basis of 
 these phenomena. The original simplicity of form and meaning 
 can be ascertained only by means of etymology ; and to this, after 
 some little known attempts,^ the interesting investigations of a Cas- 
 par Neumann and a Val. Loscher were directed.* Their attention 
 was in the first instance directed to the formal conception of the 
 stems, to which the earlier developed systems already for the most 
 part led. Both set out from the principle that the radices of the 
 Hebrew are biliterae (according to Neumann, " characteres signi- 
 ficationis," according to Loscher. " semina vocum") ; and that the 
 ground-meaning of the bilitera must be evolved from the meaning 
 of the letters composing it. Very careful and valuable were the 
 observations which these writers made as to the rise of the trilitera 
 from the bilitera. More fluctuating and less certain is the siguifi- 
 catio hieroglyphica or symbolica (according to Neumann), or the 
 valor logicus (according to Loscher), which was ascribed to parti- 
 cular letters, though even here there is much which is not to be 
 
 1 Comp. Pfeiffer, Crit. Sac. p. 175; Loscher, p. 133; Schultens, p. 295, sq. ; Micliaelis, 
 Beurtb. der Mittel u. s. w., s. 43, ff. 
 
 2 Comp. Loscher, p. 135 ; Schultens, p. 297, sq. ; Micl}aelis, Bcurth. der Mittel u. s. w., 
 s. 53, ff. 
 
 3 See on these Carpzov, Crit. Sac, p. 186, sq. and 196. 
 
 4 Neumann wrote Genesis Liug. Sac. V. Ti. (1696), Exodus. L. S. (1697), Ciavis 
 Domus Eber (1712.) Of Loscher's writings, his book Dc Causis L. Ebr., and his Aufs. 
 in den. Unschuld. Naelir. v. J. 1713, s. 320, ff., come under tliis head. 
 
222 HISTORY OF THK 
 
 viewed as arbitrary play, and which a further pursuit of the subject, 
 such as Loscher earnestly desired, has brought to greater accuracy.^ 
 A new and most valuable impulse was given to the study of gram- 
 mar by the more exact examination of the doctrine of sounds. It 
 was acknowledged how little grammar is helped so long as this, its 
 basis, is treated imperfectly or erroneously. The great merit of the 
 Hollander Alting (fundamenta punctationis, 1. s.) consists in having 
 directed careful attention on the nature of syllables and tones, so 
 that the quantity of syllables and their internal vowel-changes have 
 been by him very excellently set forth. This so-called systema 
 morarum has been since then more fully delineated by Danz, and 
 more recently by Hirt, Meiner, and others. The mass of the ob- 
 jections urged against it are wide of the mark ;^ what seems to be 
 the chief error of this system is, that in it the syllables are con- 
 sidered according indeed to their time-measure, their quantity ; 
 but too outwardly in this respect, inasmuch as the nature of the 
 vowels, which lies at the basis of this, was not acknowledged rele- 
 vantly in the particular instances, the consequence of which could 
 not but be, that the representation of the syllables should suffer in 
 point of correctness. Still, however, the Alting-Danzian system 
 retains the merit of having first constructed the edifice of Hebrew 
 Grammar on scientific principles. 
 
 § 40. CONCLUSION. — EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURIES. 
 
 Here the Dutch school comes forward most conspicuously. 
 Holland was already from the end of the seventeenth century a 
 chief seat of classical and oriental learning, and from it, conse- 
 
 1 Chr. B. Michaelis, in his Diss, de vocum seminibiis et litterarum significatione 
 hieroglypliiea (Hal. 1709), and Carpzov, Grit. Sac. p. 192, sq., Lave offered profound but 
 not always sufficiently thorough going strictures on the so-called hlerogli/phic system. 
 The objections of J. D. Michaehs, in his Beurth. d. Mittel, s, 88, if., are fade, and for 
 the most part really silly. The performances of these men do not ijideed deserve to be 
 stigmatised as " monstrous theories" (Gesenius, Gesch. s. 125.) In more recent times 
 iliey have found for the first time a worthy critic in Ilupfeld, de emendanda lexicog. 
 semit, ratione, p. 3. 
 
 2 See the literature of this subject in Hezel, Gesch. d. Hebr. Spr. s. 288, ff. 
 
 3 Such as those of Vater, Hebr. Sprachl. s. 12, flf. ; Gesenius, Gesch, s. 124. It was, 
 for instance, irrelevant to lay stress on the intrusion which is found here upon the ;)ri;i- 
 ciplcs of the Masoretic punctuation; see Hupfeld in the Hermes, xxxi. s, 54. 
 
ORIGINAL LANGUAGES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 22:1 
 
 quently, there proceeded a new cultivation of the Hebrew, on 
 which the study of the dialects, especially the Arabic, exerted 
 an influence. As the founder of this school must be viewed, the 
 great Alb. Schultens (died 1750), whose numerous followers and 
 scholars, such as Schroder, Scheid, &c., contributed to the largest 
 and weightiest extent to this department. In their grammatical 
 labours the adherents of this school rendered service by the con- 
 tribution of much that was valuable in the investigation and eluci- 
 dation of details; but there was a want of systematic connection, 
 and of penetration into the profouuder laws of general grammar. 
 Their lexicographical efforts are of higher worth, especially in 
 respect of their etymological principles. Their leading tendency 
 was to determine the physical ground-meaning, and especially in 
 consequence of the paucity of the remains of Hebrew literature to call 
 in for this the aid of tlie Arabic. In this way the meanings of the 
 stems were simplified. Schultens has also in this enquiry rendered 
 important service,^ and in his later writings especially, and those of 
 bis scholars, there appears the one-sided aspect of this method, 
 which consists in the too exclusive use of the dialects,^ to the ne- 
 glecting of the means of investigating what is peculiarly the He- 
 braistic.^ Much was often forced upon this which was foreign to it, 
 and this gave rise to the crowd of erroneous etymologies and em- 
 phases, which some have sought, often indeed with a learning that 
 dazzles and blinds, to establish in the Hebrew. 
 
 In Germany the chief adherents of this school were Ch. B. 
 Michaelis and Storr, though they paid more regard to the Aramaic. 
 There again prevailed, however, through the undue influence of the 
 Schultensian school, a certain empiricism, which is to be viewed in 
 relation to the earlier as a retrogression in the method of investiga- 
 tion, and by which penetration into the spirit of the Hebrew was 
 little furthered. To such an eraperical mode of treatment, in opposi- 
 tion even to what had been before attempted, did Vater yield him- 
 self. However distinguished for careful collecting of materials, and 
 
 1 See Hupfield, L. cit. p. 5. sqq. 
 
 2 See Scbelling, Vom Gebrauch der Arab. Spr. zu ein. griind. Einsicbt in die Hebr. 
 1771, 8vo. 
 
 3 And in this respect there is ground for much of the censure pronounced by Driessen, 
 the principal opponent of Schultens, on his treatment of the subject; comp. Origg. 
 )). 303, sq. 
 
 4 See the Literature in Gesenius Lib. cit., s. 128, fl'. 
 
224 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 tasteful arrangement are the lexical and grammatical works of 
 Gesenius, they are nevertheless confined to this empirical stand- 
 point, and they may he regarded as having served to procure for it 
 a more lasting respect. By Ewald's " Kritische Grammatik," this 
 was for the first time assaulted, and a scientific investigation of the 
 language, proceeding upon the proper laws of speech, and placed 
 upon a footing of due harmony with the historical appearance and 
 development of the language, was entered upon. His efforts and 
 those of Hupfeld have thus once more begun to create positively an 
 epoch in the study of Hebrew — an advance which is also beginning 
 at least to make itself apparent in the lexical department (as in 
 Winer s edition of the Lexicon of Simonis ) 
 
 Very little relatively has been done for the Biblical Chaldee. It 
 has indeed advanced in common with the Hebrew ; nevertheless 
 there have always been wanting the right apprehension of it in 
 its relation to the old Hebrew, and consequently a Grammar and 
 Lexicon, setting out from this principle and carrying through with 
 it. Buxtorf still remains the completest compilation of lexical and 
 grammatical matter here, and there is still wanting a genuinely 
 scientific and independent treatment even in the Grammars of J. D. 
 Michaelis, Winer, and others. 
 
 1 Comp. Stud. u. Krit. 1830, II., s. 3.53, ff. 
 
( 225 
 
 CHAPTER THIRD. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 §41. GENERAL VIEW. 
 
 Having completed our historical investigation into the Language 
 of the Old Testament Canon, it now devolves on us to make an 
 estimate of its external character. The linguistic Introduction hav- 
 ing thrown light upon the way and manner in which the thoughts 
 of the sacred writers found expression, the history of the Text must 
 show in what form the thought thus expressed, or what the writer 
 has put down, is preserved to us. The inquiry, therefore, is 
 twofold; how the documents of the Old Testament found their 
 external form in part and whole, i.e., what is their palaeographical 
 quality ; and in what form the Canon, so written, was preserved to 
 us, and at the same time, through what periods (historically) the 
 Text has passed. Thus we obtain a history of the Text ascending 
 naturally from the particular to the general, which will put us in a 
 position to make a critical estimate of the same. 
 
 § 42. GENERAL PREFATORY REMARKS ON THE ART OF WRITING. 
 
 All writing, so far as it rests on the endeavour to give fixedness 
 and duration to thought, may, according to its nature, be formed in 
 a twofold manner. Either the thought stands forth in an outward 
 mode corresponding to it — hjrioloy'cal, n-atura I writmg; or the 
 
22G HiSTOKY OF thp: 
 
 form is viewed as inadequate and therefore a]so unessential, and 
 there springs up a concerted, arbitrary, positive writing. While 
 the kyriological writing has to do therefore directly with the idea 
 itself, the positive writing, on the contrary, must seek a certain 
 accommodation betwixt idea and representation. This is sound, 
 which expresses the thought at the smallest cost of means. In this 
 way, in the case of kyriological writing, language and writing are 
 quite disjoined from each other; on the other hand, the writing 
 according to sound unites the two most closely together, so far as 
 it presupposes a determinate language/ 
 
 In the innermost nature of man is seated the striving after a 
 concrete intuition of the supersensuous, abstract, ideal, in order to 
 preserve himself in a constant relation to it, and by means of this 
 intuition again to concentrate, as a whole, the discursive thinking. 
 Thus especially did antiquity live in concrete contemplation ; for 
 that reason also was its simple method of teaching symbolical, and 
 for the same reason was its writing also at first kyriological. How 
 different soever the forms this writing may take, as indeed Clement 
 of Alexandria distinguishes several kinds of hieroglyphics,2 at one 
 time faithfully copying, at another merely indicating by resemblance 
 and again more complex in its derivation, there is still in this variety 
 a fundamental law, cohering with the whole philosophy of the 
 ancients, their concrete- figurative mode of thinking and speaking. 
 The more a nation perseveres in this its ancient simplicity, and 
 the less it comes forth and enters into social connexion with 
 other nations, the more must it have, as its abiding property, the 
 kyriological writing, which is too closely connected with all its 
 peculiar life, manners, and religion, to be sacrificed to other interests. 
 Hence, in ancient times Egypt was so faithful a conservator of its 
 hieroglyphic writing, and only in later degenerate times allowed 
 other writings to enter,^ hence the strictly exclusive nation of the 
 Chinese has so long maintained itself in possession of this writing. 
 
 Arbitrary writing, or letter writing (as distinguished from hiero- 
 glyphics) rests, on the contrary, upon a more external interest of 
 man, his social life and intercourse, and mercantile relationships. 
 
 1 Kopp, Bilder und Scbriften II., s. 51, ft". 
 
 '.' Strom, V. p. 657. Comp. Gorres, Mytbengescli. p. 13, fi". 
 
 3 Compare the excellent investigiUions in Krenser, Vorfragen iiber Homeros, s. 15 — 
 49, wlio only errs in conceiving of the kyriological writing as a mere sensuous picture, 
 originating from (lie animal beginning of man, p. 47. 
 
TKXT OF THF, OLD TESTAMENT. 227 
 
 It is not exactly a powerful intellectual elevation of a people that is 
 concerned in the invention of such a writing; even among the rudest 
 nations we find at least the beginnings of this kind of communica- 
 tion.^ Where the want of exact mutual explanation is felt, or where 
 trade renders the business of accounts necessary, arbitrary written 
 signs become indispensable in the business of life. If we compare, in 
 this respect, the life and pursuits of the Phoenician people, so far 
 as we can go back into its ancient history, with the Egyptian, wc 
 shall expect beforehand in the former a different writing from that 
 of the latter. 
 
 The character of the two modes of writing being thus mutually 
 distinct, we are obliged to reject the opinion of those who think 
 that all letter-writing has proceeded only out of the hieroglyphical.^ 
 For in this case writing is conceived as originating in far too 
 mechanical a way, and is severed from its intimate relation to the 
 life and character of nations. But historically also it is difficult to 
 bring proof for it, because in the case of the Egyptians it would 
 hardly do to regard the letter-writing otherwise than as arising 
 later through Phoenicio-Hellenistic influence ; and the syllable and 
 sound writing of the Chinese has likewise first been formed from 
 acquaintance with Europeans who practised writing.* And though 
 we grant that picture and writing are so related to each other that 
 the former gave occasion to the latter (which is yet a quite different 
 thing from the one originating out of the other), yet we can in 
 no case go back at present to that primitive age in which the 
 connexion took effect, in order thereby to determine more nearly 
 the mode and manner of that influence. 
 
 § 43. ANTIQUITY OF LETTER-WRITING AMONG THE SEMITIC 
 NATIONS. 
 
 According to what precedes, we found in Egypt an ancient sacred 
 kyriological writing. Though this is clearly shown to be of high 
 
 1 Kopp \. cit., s. 66, ff. 
 
 '^ Comp. Kreuser, L c , s. 94, if, 
 
 3 Comp. e. If. Hug Die Erfinclung tier Buclistabenscbrift, s. 21, fif. And, though in a 
 quite different way, Kopp, s. 62, ft'. 
 
 4 Comp. Kreuser, 1. c. s. 42, 48, 283. 
 
•228 
 
 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 antiquity, little success has liilherto crowned the attempt to prove 
 antiquity in the case of letter- writing. The investigations into the 
 latter have as yet only led to the couclusion that it is either to be 
 viewed as arising out of the ancient hieroglyphics or as introduced 
 under foreign influence; and of the two opinions the latter still 
 continues historically the more demonstrable.^ In neither case, 
 however, are we authorized to regard Egypt as the original home of 
 letter-writing. Only since and through Plato^ did it become a 
 custom among Greeks and Romans to claim the honour of this 
 invention for the Egyptians, partly, perhaps, occasioned by their 
 hieroglyphical writing, which was mistaken for letter- writing, but 
 chiefly from a predilection and admiration strongly awakened, at 
 that time, for everything Egyptian.^ 
 
 Historical combinations, the unanimous credible testimonies of 
 the ancients,* unite in pointing us consequently to the Semitic nations 
 of Hither-Asia as the oldest possessors of an alphabetic character. 
 The accounts differ only in thestatement of particulars, inasmuch 
 as some name Assyria and Babylon, others Phoenicia, others the 
 Syrians in general, and others still the Hebrews.^ It is not 
 difficult to point out in the case of these nations a particular interest 
 out of which each of them was named, whilst the individual view of 
 the writer exercised an obvious influence thereon. When, there- 
 fore, some inquirers decide, more, as appears, on paloeographical 
 grounds, in favour of the Babylonians,*^ others, more on historical 
 grounds, in favour of the Phoenicians,? others still, in favour of the 
 Aramaeans,^ as inventors of writing ; they are hypotheses which 
 are easily made and as easily refuted, but altogether without any 
 particular interest. This only is of importance, that all historical 
 accounts direct our look to the Hither-Asiatic Semitics as the 
 inventors of writing, and that any more special view exceeds the 
 limits of historical knowledge. 
 
 1 Comp. Kreuser, 1. c. s. 45, ft". 
 
 •2 Phaedrus, p. .'340, ed. Heindorf., comp. Jablonski, Pantli. Aeg. 3, p 161, seq. 
 3 Kreuser, 1. cit. 
 
 i Comp. die collation of these iu Pliuy, Hist. Nat., VII. 56, and the interpretation 
 there. 
 
 5 So Eupolemus (perhaps himself a Jew; see Stroth in the Repert. f. bibl. n. mor- 
 genl. Liter. XVI. p.7;3), in Euseb. Praep. Ev. IX. 26, and Church Fathers, as Greg. 
 Naz. or. I. contr. Jul. p. 99. 
 
 6 So Eichhorn. Gesch. d. Liter. I. 15. ff. Kopp, II. 147, ff. 
 
 7 So Kreuser, 1. c s. 65, ff. 
 b E. g. EwulU, Krit. Gr. s. 9. 
 
TEXT OF THK OLD TESTAMENT. 229 
 
 The difficulty of this exact determination is so much greater as 
 tliat information respecting the East has come to us only from one 
 quarter, the Greeks. But these had a really historical knowledge 
 only of the Phoenicians, the nation through whose means they 
 obtained themselves the letter-writing from the East. All historians 
 agree in this, Herodotus (V. 58), the father of history at their head, 
 and the most trustworthy writers of history follow him,^ unitedly 
 relating that the Phoenicians first conveyed the knowledge of 
 writing to the Greeks. They are also unanimous in assigning this 
 event to the most ancient period of Greek history, that of Cadmus ; 
 the Tyrian Cadmus (see Herod. II. 49) first of all introduced into 
 Greece, writing with sixteen letters. This account, in itself very 
 credible,^ and confirmed by such weighty testimonies, cannot be 
 weakened in its truth through the uncertainty of the tradition 
 concerning Cadmus ; and even 0. Miiller, who in this matter is 
 sceptical, cannot avoid conceding to the Phoenicians the glory of 
 having provided Hellas (Greece) with its writing, though he removes 
 this fact to times manifestly too late.s Those writers who take an 
 opposite view are led by other interests from which they have 
 conceived of the occurrence differently, but for that reason also are 
 not to be trusted. Thus some, from partiality to Egypt, make Cadmus 
 come from Egypt to Greece, as at first Hecatoeus of Miletus,* who 
 had visited Egypt itself, consequently was here plainly under 
 Egyptian influence, since the priests of that country (as is clear 
 from Herodotus II. 49) were very ready to appropriate to them- 
 selves what careful examination must ascribe to the Phoenicians. 
 Through the influence of Plato, this legend acquired increasing 
 credit, and, whilst the Conon, who lived shortly before Christ,* is 
 content to make Cadmus an Egyptian emigrant, others, such as 
 the Egyptian Nonnus, make him first of all travel to Egypt, to 
 find the letters there, and then to bring them over to the Greeks.'' 
 Influenced by a diflerent but just as intelligible an interest, the 
 
 1 So Diouysiiis of Milet, in Diodor. Sic. III. 66; Epliorus Id Cluin. Al. Strom. I., p. 
 306, ed. Sylb., &c. 
 
 '■' So far as the history of the Greek alpliabet ou monuments still preserved to us like- 
 wise bears witness tliereto, comp. Matthiae, Gr. Gr. I. p. 21, Kreuser, ). c. s. 74. 
 
 3 OrchomenoR nnd die Minyer, p. 115. See on the other hand Balir z. Herod. V. -58, 
 ill., p. 93 
 
 * Comp. the passage in Photins, hihl. cod. 15-1. 
 
 5 In Photins, cod. 196. 
 
 f> Dionysiaca IV. 2^)9. 
 
230 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 poets of Greece were led to deprive the tradition of Cadmus of its 
 historical element, to transfer it, like the other neighhouring 
 nations, to more remote ages, and to exalt, in this way, the national 
 honour of Greece. Thus they named Prometheus as inventor of 
 writing, as well as of all the arts/ others Hermes, otliers again 
 named Orpheus. g others still Palamedes, &c. Little, however, as 
 we are warranted with Hug, lib. cit. p. 143, if. to lay stress on the 
 account of the Egyptian origin of Greek writing, or treat it as 
 historical truth, we are just as little authorized, with Wolf, en account 
 of those embellishments of Greek tradition which proceed from a 
 merely political interest, to cast suspicion on the account of Cadmus, 
 which has proceeded from an unquestionably historical source. 5 
 
 From the Greek account respecting their oldest writing we now 
 obtain two sui'e testimonies for the Hither-Asiatics, and conse- 
 quently also the Hebrews : 1st, That the art of writing was already 
 known among them long before Moses, that therefore the period at 
 which the East was in possession of it can be determined only thus 
 far, that it reaches beyond the Mosaic age. In harmony with this, 
 again, are the native traditions also of those nations, so far as, in 
 giving the historical origin of the art of writing, they know only of 
 a mythical age, in which it was invented. Hence Sanchuniathon 
 ascribes it to the Phoenician god Thaaut (in Euseb. Preep. Ev. I. 
 9), andBerosus, according to Babylonish tradition, attributes a like 
 thing to Cannes (comp. Selden. de diis Syriis, p. 265, Miinter, 
 Rel. der Babylon, p. 36.) Therefore Pliny, after citing several of 
 these testimonies, is obliged to confess, ex quo apparet aeternus 
 literarum usus (Vll. 46.) — 2d, Not merely do we find at that 
 period among the Hither -Asiatics, that their writing was known, but 
 also widely diffused, so that they impart it even to non-Semitic 
 nations ; we have full right, for this reason, to suppose its diffusion 
 
 1 Comp. /Esclivl. Prometli. 439. 
 
 'i- Comp Hygin. fab. 277. 
 
 s See Euriped. Hippolyt. 953. Comp. Zne^a de usu obelise, p. 560. 
 
 * Comp. Wolf Prolegg. ad Homenmi, p. LI. 
 
 S Hence his conclusion is quite forced when he says, Proll. p. LII. : jam vero si oblit- 
 teratas istas fabulas jure ad poetas auctores rejicimus, ecquid aceurati judicii est, uui 
 learum, ex iisdem fontibus ductae (??), ideo quia ceteris celebratior est, addicere credu- 
 itatem ? Herodotus in his enquiry respecting the Gephyvoean descent of Harmodius 
 and Aristop;iton, goes to work in a purely historical manner (ois iyio dvaTrvvOavofievov 
 tvpiaKoi), hence his enquiry concerning Cadmus, which is intimately connected there- 
 with, still remains the most ancient historically certnin testimony. Comp. Hug. p. 135. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. .231 
 
 among the kindred Hebrews. In this we cannot be disturbed by 
 the account of the alphabet of Cadmus, whicli is said to have 
 consisted only of eighteen or seventeen or sixteen letters.^ This 
 assertion has, of course, found its advocates,^ but without its being 
 considered how the ancients arrived at it, since they reckoned and 
 numbered the letters of the old alphabet differently.^ The question, 
 namely, here is concerning the letters pj and pf, distinguished in 
 Phoenician by adding a dash, and denoted in the ancient Hellenistic 
 writing also by a diacritic mark, or a double writing of the e ; -j and 
 ^j, also, distinguished in Phoenician merely by a different position 
 of the upper little hook, had only one sign in the ancient Greek f ^ 
 and 'Q) early passed over into one sign (aly/xa and aau, Herod. I. 
 139.) Add to these the two letters retained afterwards only as signs 
 of number, the »), ^av, and p, Ko-nira,^ so that according to their 
 different views the ancients could say that the later Greek alphabet 
 has preserved remaining of the ancient only eighteen letters, &c. 
 The more ancient historians, as Herodotus, who relate nothing of 
 this difference, do not stand at all in contradiction herewith ; the old 
 alphabet could be viewed in itself, and then in its perfect agreement 
 with the Semitic, as well as in comparison with the later modified 
 alphabet, which had partly rejected old letters and partly added new, 
 and in consequence no longer harmonised with the Phoenician. 
 
 § 44. AKT OF WRITING AMONG THE HKBKEWS. ITii ANTIQUITY. 
 
 In the composition of the Pentateuch by Moses we are certainly 
 provided with a fixed starting-point in the history of the Hebrew 
 art of writing ; but as this very point is assailed, and we are 
 not allowed therefore to confine ourselves to the mention of that 
 simple fact, our inquiry becomes thereby of wider compass ; yet 
 
 1 See the varying stateraeuts of Aristotle in Pliny, li. n. VII. 58. Tacit. Aim. XI. 1-i. 
 Plutarch. Symjjos. YIII., qu. 3. Isidor. origg. I. 3. 
 
 2 See the writings cited by Gcsenius, Gesch. d. h. Sp.l62, flP. 
 
 3 For this reason, the solution of this difficulty in Jahn, Ein'. I. s. 329, as well as in 
 Gesenius, s. 163, does not appear satisfactory to me, because it does iiot explain wliy 
 these different reckonings are found among the ancients. 
 
 4 See Matthia, Gr. Gr. I., p. 22. 
 
 5 See Matthia, 1. c. 21, ff. 
 
 *• Comp. Bockh. Slaatshaush. d. Allien. If., p. 38-5, 
 
232 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 we must, at all events, proceed from the Mosaic age, in which 
 the first written documents of the Hebrews are presented to us, in 
 order from this to estimate properly the preceding and immediately 
 following period. Our enquiry, however, will have to be divided 
 into three main questions: 1st, Whence did the Hebrews obtain 
 writing ? 2d, Whe7i did they obtain it ? Sd, To what extent are 
 we to conceive that it was used and diffused in the Mosaic age ? 
 
 The Biblical records certainly give us the names of the inventors 
 of several arts (Genesis iv. 17, 21, 22) ; and the traditions of the 
 kindred and neighbouring Phoenicians, the most ancient artistical 
 nation, coincide with them in a remarkable manner. (Sauchuuia- 
 thon in Euseb. pr. Ev. I. 10.) But, as already remarked by 
 Augustin (quaest. in Exod. Ixix.) concerning the inventor of 
 writing, the Bible is silent, a sure token that he was unknown to 
 the Hebrews ; and if the native traditions of the neighbouring 
 nations glory in the original possession of this art, as the Phoeni- 
 cians and other Aramaic nations, we may justly conclude that it 
 passed from them to the Hebrews. This position is confirmed by 
 two observations. (a) The ancient authors, such as Ctesias, 
 Diodorus, Xenophon, recognize among the inhabitants of Hither- 
 Asia from the most northern Aramaic branches, down to the Naba- 
 thaeans in Arabia, only one common written character, the Xvpt,ck 
 r^pdjxixara,^ and accordingly confirm also their derivation from a 
 common source, {b) The Phoenician and old Hebrew written 
 character are so essentially one (see afterwards) that the most 
 natural conclusion is, that one of these nations received it from the 
 other, and we must dismiss the suggestion of any third people, in 
 order to explain that circumstance, as altogether superfluous and 
 arbitrary. 
 
 The close contact, however, into which, fur the space of four 
 centuries, the Hebrews came with the Egyptians, especially the 
 education of Moses at the Egyptian court, might give rise to the 
 supposition, that the Hebrews had got their writing from Egypt. 
 But the following reasons are decisive against it. (a) It is at all 
 events very doubtful whether they were acquainted at that time with 
 the Phoenician written character in Egypt, which is yet in no wise 
 to be regarded as originally in possession of alphabetic writing (see 
 
 1 Spb tiie paasiigrs in Kreiiser, 1. o. s. 61 find 2.5U. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 233 
 
 before.) But supposing even that the influence of Phoenicia upon 
 Egypt in this respect was exerted at so early a period, still we 
 should he referred to the Phoenicians rather than the Egyptians, as 
 the real teachers of the Hebrews, and we could view Egypt only 
 as an intermediate people, whose mediation again, however, would 
 be very problematical, (b) A circumstance not unimportant here, 
 is the established fact of the ancient diversity of language of the 
 Egyptians and Hebrews, from which the two nations were quite 
 unintelligihle to one another, Gen. xlii. 23 ; Ps. cxiv. 1. Now the 
 written character of a people is most intimately connected with 
 their language, and it is therefore a phenomenon difficult to 
 explain, if we make the Hebrews borrow their writing from the 
 Egyptians ; at least, the nation kindred in language must always 
 be the most powerful in influence. (<?) We would not appeal to 
 the exclusiveness of the Hebrews, as a particular despised caste, in 
 order to show the impossibility of their learning the art of writing 
 from the Egyptians. But according to the testimony of Diodorus 
 (T.18, comp. III. 4, ff.),i it is established that the Demotic writing 
 (and to this alone as a written character can the question I'efer) 
 was an acquirement of the Priest-caste, and thus very few were 
 acquainted with it. But we are by no means allowed to imagine 
 that the Hebrews stood in such a relation to the Priest- caste, as to 
 be by them instructed in arts, the knowledge of which was their 
 exclusive monopoly. 
 
 After these explanations the question may now be discussed, 
 when came the Hebrews into possession of that knowledge '•. 
 Whilst Eichhorn at the close of his investigations would leave the 
 answer to this question undetermined,^ more recent learned men 
 have decidedly replied that before the Mosaic period, no traces of a 
 knowledge of writing are found, yea, scepticism has even gone the 
 length of maintaining, that only in the time of the Judges could 
 the Hebrews properly receive the use of writing.^ Yet the intimate 
 relation, which, even in the patriarchal age, subsisted between 
 Hebrews, and Phoenicians, and Cauaanites would, in general, testify 
 
 1 Him Plato alone contradicts (delegg. VII., p. 62, eJ, Bekker),bul Plato's testiiDony 
 here can be of no weight. 
 
 2 Einl. 1. 196, ite Ausg. 
 
 3 Comp. Geseuius, Gesch. s. 140, fl'., ^)f■ Wette, Archaologic, s. ^77. IlaitmHiiu librr 
 d. Peninl., s. .%8, ff. 
 
2-ii HISTORY OF THE 
 
 to the contrary. At that time Zidon was already flourishing, and 
 the Patriarchs knew the coast so adapted to trade (the shore for 
 ships, Gen. xlix. 13.) Already we find the North at that time in 
 active business-connexion with the South, Midianitish merchants 
 come from Gilead (comp. Deuter. iii. 12, 13), and pass through 
 Palestine in order to repair to Egypt, Gen. xxxvii. 25. We find 
 a collection of their articles of luxury in the possession of Jacob, a 
 sign how easy of access people were for those connexions in trade, 
 Gen. xliii. 11, 12; objects of art, trinkets, are mentioned in the 
 history of Abraham, Gen. xxiv. 22, 47 ; party-coloured wrought 
 garments occur in the history of Joseph,^ Gen. xxxvii. 3. Not 
 mere barter do we meet with among the Patriarchs ; silver is 
 weighed and reckoned according to shekels (merchant-shekels) 
 and kesitas. Gen. xx. 16, xxiii. 16, xxxiii. 19, a distinction which 
 implies a marking of the money (the Phoenicians had coined money 
 at a very early period), see Winer, Eeallex I., s. 473. But if there 
 was such a connexion in the patriarchal age with the neighbouring 
 nations, and, at the same time, such an influence upon the luxury 
 of the Israelites, we can have the less hesitation in ascribing to 
 them also the art of writing. 
 
 The history of Judah and Tamar (Gen. xxxviii.) leads us still 
 further. Among the ornaments which Judah made use of, 1 8th 
 verse, appears a seal-ring. In the very earhest times consequently in 
 Hither-Asia must the custom have prevailed, which Herodotus 
 relates of the Babylonians, cr^pri'ylha eKa(TTo<; ex^i, I. 195, and we 
 know from the ancients the wide-spread traflic which this people 
 carried on in jirecious stones.^ This of course supposes the art of 
 engraving ; hence also in the Mosaic period, the engravings of 
 signets (□ri'^n Tt^ns)' f^Ppear as a matter well-known, Ex. xxviii. 
 11, 21, 36. But where this art is known, there is scarcely any 
 room to doubt that, along with the existence of the art of writing, 
 there was also its use." 
 
 Add to this two other traces still which conduct us to the same 
 
 1 This is the only meaniug of n^os rjro that can be justified according to the 
 liinguage. 
 
 2 Comp. Heeren, Ideen I. 2, s. 208, 211, ff., 4te. Ausg. 
 
 3 How Car the use of rings implies a great skill in arts and prevailing luxury may 
 appear from the judgment of one who bad a knowledge of art, Pliny, who represents them 
 ns unknown to the Greeks before the Trojan war, since be rejects the tradition of the 
 iron ring of Promethrus as fabulous, b. n. SH, 2. 
 
 1 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 235 
 
 result. A class of Egyptiau priests appears in Genesis, under the 
 name Qi^^tS'in' ^1^- ®- Evidently the name is not of Egyptian 
 origin (the derivations from this source, which have heen attempted 
 at least, have all failed), but of Semitic. We have therefore here, 
 as in several other instances, the translation of an Egyptian 
 expression into Hebrew. ■*• But then it also follows, incontestably, 
 that at that time the instrument of writing ^*)n (Job also mentions 
 the iron style, xix. 24), was received into use.^ There is also found 
 the related verb J-^'^^H- ^^ engrave, scratch into, in the sense of 
 writing, Exod. xxxii. IC (comp. the Greek ')(apdaaeLv.) 
 
 Important, moreover, is the expression Q'^'^tO'Vl^' comp. Exod. v. 6, 
 frequently occurring in the Pentateuch, and likewise testifying of an 
 ante-Mosaic age. These were Israelites (comp. ver. 15, 16, Eich- 
 horn, Einl. III. s. 577), and the name was thus an Israelitish 
 designation of an office existing among them. The radical meaning 
 of this word is tvriter. Some, indeed (as Vater, 1. c. s. 537 ; Ge- 
 senius, s. 141), have wished to derive the Hebrew "^t^'i^ from 
 the signification prcefuit, because "^^^r; signifies only in general 
 overseer, officer. But this meaning is only a derived one, the 
 question here is about the word already naturalized in the Hebrew, 
 and meaning to write? That this, however, is the case, the 
 
 dialects prove most decidedly; so the Aramaic (Syriac) I}-^-», lr-fe-»l, 
 scriptum (Col. ii. 14 ; Pesch. Hahn and Sieffert, chr. Syr. p. 100, 
 105), the Chaldee ^"^^^lUJ' scriptum obligationis, contractus (Jerem. 
 xxxii. 10, fi". ; Targ.^Mischnah, I. p. 47, III. p. 3C3, IV. p. 198, 
 ed. Surenhus), also, letter, tvriting in general, II. p. 410, IV, p. 
 
 1 10.* So the Arabic U«,. to ivrite, from that, the meaning, gladio 
 
 1 Comp. ray Commentary ou the Book of Daniel, s.52, ff. 
 
 ' The word t;"h occurs also in the Pentateuch, Exod. xxxii. 4, but in a different 
 meaning, a thing made of metal, a metallic purse (consequently a peculiar sort of purse, 
 distinguished from o^S.) This is required by the context, and a comparison with ver. 
 24, and in 2 Kings v. 23, u-i-! stands related to its plural D'^a'^'l^ as ^33 to D''^"^D9, is5 
 to a'l'j^iJ (the instances which Winer, Lex. s. 361, compares are erroneous.) Conse- 
 quently that passage in Exodus vouches only for the expertness of the men of that age 
 in works of metal. 
 
 3 Just as the use of 7pa<^£ti', even when it occurs ouly in a figurative sense, testifies 
 that writing was known to Homer, as II. IV. 139, XI. 388, XIII. 553, &p. 
 
 4 In the passages which Buxtorf, Lex, Cliald, Talm., p. 2380, quotes for the meaning 
 
23f) HISTORY OF THE 
 
 amputavit (Freytag, Lex. TT., p. 314), as the Homeric eTTfypd-^ai 
 -voXku), and the meaning, vana et ficta locutus est, prae se tuht, 
 
 (conj. v.), as also in Syriac pO-^^, stolidus (properly, to make 
 much scribbling, and derived therefrom are then the forms referring 
 
 to writing Uaaw> praefectus fuit, U^j<».mw«. praefectus (comp. Schul- 
 tensad Job, II. p. 1098.) 
 
 Also in Job xxxviii. 33 the derivative ■^tSUJT^ appears in paral- 
 lelism with n'ijpli. and is to be translated, " the ordinances of 
 
 heaven," the fixed order of its stars ; comp. the Arabic U^, 
 linea, ordo, series, and 'il^^^^, canon, linea geometrica.^ In 
 later times also we still find this office, and the Levites as exer- 
 cising it, which likewise agrees well with the office of writing, as 
 entrusted to the learned class, and we have perhaps to think chiefly 
 on the keeping of genealogies and registers so important to the 
 nation, which, as the most important part of their employment, 
 occasioned their name. 
 
 Against this ante-Mosaic use of the art of writing thus proved, 
 there is objected, first of all, the way and manner in which, accord- 
 ing to Genesis, they sought to aid the memory by means of heaps 
 of stones, trees, altars, &c., which we meet with elsewhere also 
 among uncultivated nations before the invention of the art of writ- 
 ing."^ But the object of these monuments is by no means exhausted 
 by calling them aids to the memory ; how is this object to be 
 attained by merely denoting the fact to be preserved ? Moreover, 
 we do not at all know how it stood with these memorials, whether 
 they were furnished with inscriptions or not. For from the bare 
 naming of such a monument (comp. e. y. Gen. xxxiii. 20) we 
 cannot infer with certainty either tlie one or the other.s Such a 
 
 (lominatiis, -^-i' stands for tbe usual "^jo Hebr -^s, ns Dan. vii. y. Moreover, akin 
 
 
 
 with-iB-v^, to write, are the transposed forms Is ,a«> »^r^ '-'", '.^c. 
 
 •i 
 
 1 The meaning, dominion, does not suit this place. 
 
 2 Comp. Gen. xxi. 33, xsxi 46, xxxv. 7, 1. 11. So Gesenius andDe Wette. 
 
 3 Let attention be here drawn, meanwhile, to the monument set up by Jacob at the 
 grave of Rachel, or pillar, nniitt, Gen. xxxv. 20. That these aTtjKai of the ancients, 
 which Homer mentions (II. XVI. 457, XVII. 435, Od. XII. 14), were, even in the ear- 
 liest times, furnished with inscriptions, is clear from Job xix. 24, xxi. 32 (compare Pa- 
 reau de immortnlit. notit, &c., p. 162), as was also Ihe case with the primitive Greek 
 
TKXT OF THb: OLD TESTAMENT. 237 
 
 custom, moreover, we still find not seldom in the post-Mosaic age also 
 (comp. e. g. Judges vi. 24), far too much, therefore, would be 
 inferred from the ancient patriarchal usus if we would thence prove 
 their ignorance of writing. 
 
 It fares still worse with the objections that are made a prioti 
 against what we maintain, as that the art of writing would have 
 been useless and barren for an uncultivated nomadic people like 
 the Hebrews, and that it is not conceivable that such a people 
 should have been so early put in possession of such an art, and so 
 on.i There lie here at the foundation commonly two wrong ideas ; 
 the one, that we are not able to conceive of the ancient simple 
 life without rudeness and barbarism ; but the old ante-Mosaic 
 history clearly teaches the contrary, if we especially compare it with 
 the later, where degeneracy and wildness appear, such as we see 
 nowhere in earlier times ; the second, that we proceed from precon- 
 ceived opinions concerning the value or worthlessness of what the 
 most primitive age had to record, without becoming aware objec- 
 tively of the ideas which the primitive age itself cherished concern- 
 ing their knowledge. The principle which Wolf laid down in the 
 case of Homer, " diu illorum hominum vita et simplicitas nihil 
 admodum habuit, quod scriptura digniim videretur" (Proll.p. LIX.), 
 is a dogmatic utterance of this sort by which people will criticise 
 and censure an age which they so little know, and whose charac- 
 teristic life and pursuits they view in a manner quite foreign to it, 
 without consulting history. What is gained for ancient history with 
 the help of such a priori criticism, is only a caricature of history. 
 
 Our position acquires yet new confirmation by an inquiry 
 respecting the diffusion of writing in the Mosaic and immediately 
 succeeding age. If, for instance, we find here writing entering so 
 deeply into the whole life of a people, as is actually the case, we 
 must of necessity ascribe to them an earlier acquaintance with it, 
 and we are thus in circumstances to estimate the worth of the 
 remark of some recent writers that even in the Pentateuch itself, 
 
 tombstones (comp. Diod. Sic. V. 79; Herod. I. 93 ; Plutarch, daem. Socr. p. 577; Pau- 
 sati. VIII. 26, 3 (comp. V. 8, 3), Philostrnt. vit. Apollon. I. 24, &c. The aucients, it 
 is well known, mention primitive Babylonish tombstones with inscriptions, as Herodot. 
 ( I. 187), Clesias, p. 154, ed. Bahr, &c. 
 
 1 Hereupon rests principally the reasoning of Hartmaun, s. 688. Compare on the 
 other side the essay in Tholuek's Liter. Anz. 1833. No. 32, 33. 
 
238 H18T01vY OF THK 
 
 thero is no reference to writing as properly customary (Vater, 1. c. 
 s. 533, flF.) We set out from the assumption that such a diffusion 
 of writing must in high antiquity be restricted to the more culti- 
 vated part of the community, the priests ; and this is exactly what 
 we find among the Israelites. As respects the Levites, it is quite, 
 clear that the position assigned to them in the Mosaic code cannot 
 be comprehended unless we suppose them to have been in the 
 possession of the art of writing. To them was the Book of the 
 Law given (Deut. xxxi. 9), and from them the king of Israel must 
 receive it in a copy (Deut xvii. 18). Every seven years they had to 
 read the same to the assembled people (Deut. xxxi. 10 — 13.) 
 This presupposes people who could " handle the pen and transcribe 
 important books." (Michaelis, Mos. K. I. s. 254.) Further, they 
 were the persons by whom the right weights and measures were 
 determined,^ and this could not be done without some mode of 
 reckoning ; the lepoypafj./jjaT€l<; among the Egyptian priests had a 
 similar function." The priests had also judicial functions ; they 
 had to decide according to the Law ;^ and this again most decidedly 
 presupposes writing,* especially when one takes into account the 
 Egyptian custom of holding judgment, in connection with which 
 much was written (Diodor. Sic. I. 75.) In fine, as already observed, 
 to them were chiefly intrusted the genealogies of the tribes and 
 census of the people, and from this a name proper to them was 
 derived f Scribe. J 
 
 To the same result, viz., that the art of writing was widely 
 diflfused, we are brought by other passages of the Mosaic books. 
 The seventy elders were summoned by Moses in writing. Numb, 
 xi. 26, where D^HD^ stands in place of the common Qifc^^'^p, 
 consequently " conscription." That we have here a later formula 
 in which the language is adapted to the usage of a later age, as 
 Vater suggests (s. 533), is altogether unfounded and erroneous, for 
 that college did not exist in the later post-Mosaic period (Michaelis, 
 
 1 As Michaelis has thoroughly proved, Mos. U. IV., s. 368 — 3S6. 
 
 2 According to Clem. Alex. Stromm, VI., p. 757, ed. Potter. It is to be observed, that 
 amongst the ancieuts luimbers and letters were identical, and hence an additional 
 confirmation of our view. 
 
 3 Comp. Deut. vii. 8, fl'., xxi. 5 ; 1 Chr. xxiii. 4, xxvi. 29, ff.; 2 Chr. xix. 8, ff., xxxiv. 
 13; Ez. xliv. 24. 
 
 i Hence ana is itself used of the despatch of judicial business, .Job xiii. 26 ; Is. x. 1 ; 
 comp. also Job xxxi. 35. 
 
TK.XT OF THK, OJ.D TliSTAMENT. 230 
 
 Mos. R. T. 242, fF.) Accordiug to Numb. v. 28 the curses 
 pronounced by the priests on the adulteress were to be written in a 
 book (-^P)^:a-) The cutting of stones (n^Jj ntL^n.' ^xod. xxxv. 
 33) was exercised as a special art, and particularly the engraving of 
 letters on precious or common stones (Exod. xxviii. ; Deut. xxvii.) ; 
 whilst, on the other hand, the engraving of idolatrous symbols 
 (Hieroglyphics) in stone (j-j^^^tpD D^) ^'''^^ forbidden, Lev. xxvi. 1 ; 
 Numb, xxxiii. 52. This shows how much the Mosaic Law itself 
 pronounced alphabetic writing as alone accordant with its character, 
 and contributed to its diflFusion. Analogous is the law in which 
 the bearing of the n'iQt^'it;^. which were inscribed with passages from 
 the law, is commended in place of the heathen Amulets, see Exod. 
 xiii. 10 ; Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18. It was old custom that of inscribing 
 the door posts ; hence the command Deut. vi. 9. According to 
 Deut. xxiv. 1 — 4 a husband separating from his wife must write 
 her a bill of divorcement (]-\*)p«i-^5 -^no Tih IHId)' ^^^^ preparation of 
 which would render the divorce a more grave and deliberate 
 procedure.'^ Against the supposition that this law is of later origin 
 (so e. yr. Vater, s. 633 ; Hartmann, s. 037) there are, apart from 
 the futihty of the objections urged, also the passages in which such 
 a law is assumed as extant." 
 
 These testimonies from the Pentateuch receive augmented weight 
 when we compare the time immediately following the Mosaic, and 
 find in it the art of writing fully known and diffused. Joshua writes 
 readily (xxiv. 20) ; the blessings and the curses of the Law were 
 to be engraven in stone on Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, Jos. viii. 
 30, ff. ; the Israehtes found in the land a city which bore the name 
 of Book-town (xv. 15) ; by the ordinance of Joshua the territory to 
 be divided was described (in writing) and measured (xviii. 4, 6, 9, 
 see Clericus in loc.) In the time of the Judges we find already the 
 title "^q'^ as a designation of the officer whose care it was to muster 
 the troops (Jerem. hi. 25), Judg. v. 14; and the account of the 
 young man of Succoth shows how at that time the mass were able 
 
 1 See Faber's Archaeol. s. 429 ; Rosenmiiller, A. u. N. Morgenl. II. 299. 
 
 2 See Micbaelis, Mos. E. 11.317, ff. ; Tholuck, Comment, ueb. d. Bergpredigt. s. 2l6. 
 [Bib. Cab. No. VI. p. 326.] 
 
 3 Comp. Judg. xiv. 20, XV, 1, 8; ISam.xxv. 44; 2 Sam. iii. 13, ff.; Mic. ii.9; Is. 1.1; 
 Jer. iii, 8. 
 
210 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 to write. — If in this way tlie post-Mosaic age stands in correctest 
 relation to the preceding, so must we regard the accounts of the 
 Pentateuch concerning the diffusion of the art of writing as 
 genuine — as raised heyond all doubt. 
 
 § 45. ANCIENT WRITING MATERIALS. 
 
 As one of the earliest materials for writing, the Pentateuch 
 mentions fixed massive objects, viz., stones, Ex. xxiv. 12, xxxi. 
 18, xxxiv. 1 ; Deut, x. 1, xxvii. 1, ff. Of these use was made for 
 public ornaments, and hard iron styles appear to have been the 
 instruments with which the inscriptions were traced (Job xix. 24 ; 
 Jerera. xvii. 1.) We find, besides, mention made of metal as 
 material for writing (Ex. xxviii. 36, ff.,) and of wood (Num. xvii. 
 
 T, ff.)' 
 
 A twofold error has arisen from the one-sided treatment of this 
 and similar passages of the ancients.^ It has been supposed that 
 it follows from this that such materials were alone used for public 
 muniments, and that consequently a more extensive authorship 
 could by such means hardly exist (such for instance as the writing 
 down of the entire Pentateuch.) The opposite is proved by the 
 "Epya Koi 'Hfiepat of Hesiod, which Pausanias found among the 
 Boeotians written on lead (IX. 31, 4), and the earliest transcripts 
 of the Goran, which were on the rudest materials — stones, bones, 
 palm leaves. — Of more importance, however, is the error associated 
 with this, viz., that the art of writing, which began with these 
 materials, did not, till a later period, bring into use other materials. 
 So far from there being any contrariety in the use of both kinds of 
 materials, the harder and the softer, we may with great advantage 
 regard them as combined, nay, must assume that, where such an 
 art as the engraving of letters on precious stones was exercised,* 
 
 1 Thelols here mentioned were of wood, just as tbe ancient Greeks f Eustatli. ad Horn. 
 II. III., 316) and the ancient Arabs also cast lots with staves, arrows, &c. (Pococke, 
 Spec. Hist. Arab. p. 96, 3-.i9.) Homer already mentions inscribed lots (II. VII. 175 : 
 (cX^poi; E<7f)ju»;i/avTo k'/cao-Tos), comp. Cic. de Divin. II. 41: sortes . . . insculptfts 
 priscarum literarum notis. Lueian. Herraot. opp. I., p. 535, sq. ed. Hemsterb. 
 
 2 Comp. Wolf, Prolegg. p. LX. sq. ; Vater, s. 524, flF. ; de Wette, Arcbaeol. § 280. 
 
 3 Comp. de Sacy in tbe Memoires de I'Academie des Inscript. L. p. 307. 
 
 4 Already Pliny (H. N, 37, 30) observes how hard the ardentes gemmae were to work. 
 
•i'EXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. ^^41 
 
 there is presupposed familiarity with a less intractable kind oi' 
 material for writing. Antiquity must previously have had to do 
 with simple and easily worked materials ; it was an advance when 
 they began to have regard to durability of material, and at the same 
 time to the claims of art. The design of the writing also would 
 have influence here, and according as its object was of weighty or 
 of less and merely temporary importance, would the material be 
 chosen. This is the process of writing materials among the Greeks 
 and Romans. The Tr/i^a/ce? and aavtSef; of the most ancient period 
 (Homer, II. VI. 160 ; comp. therewith Herod. VII. 239, andBiihr 
 thereon, Eurip. Alcest. 900, fF.) were certainly composed of softer 
 materials (as the use of them shows) than the laws at a later period 
 written on wood and brass ; by the Romans the laws were inscribed 
 originally on wooden plates, afterwards on brass, and the reason 
 assigned for this by Dionysius of Haricarnassus is that the former 
 d(paviadr]vai avve^r] rS '^p6v(o} 
 
 Applying these remarks to the notices of writing materials found 
 in the Pentateuch, they lead us to assume the previous use of other 
 and more convenient writing materials. For, exactly where mention 
 is made of the long possession of certain written documents, there 
 stone and metal are viewed as extraordinary materials. Hence 
 the case there becomes analogous to that in which it is said of Judas 
 Maccabaeus : avreypa-yfrev ev SeXToi.<i ^ a A, /cats' koL dTreareiXev 
 et<> 'lepoaoXvfxa elvai irap auTOi<i fjuvij/xoavvov elprjvrj'i Kal 
 av/jiij,axia<i. 1 Mace. viii. 22, comp. xiv. 27. With justice, even 
 were all further data concerning the writing materials of this age 
 wanting, we might from such passages conclude, not that this was 
 the common material, but rather that here an unusual one, such as 
 the case rendered necessary, is intended. Accordingly, even in the 
 case of the Pentateuch, it is open to us to enquire what material 
 we can discover to have been the one commonly, in every day life, 
 used at that period. 
 
 If we set out from the results already attained, that the oldest 
 Hebrew writing was not of Egyptian but of Hither-Asiatio origin, 
 we may assume from the first that there was some writing material 
 common to this historical origin. Some indeed, as Eichhoru' 
 
 J See Ernesti arcliaeolog. literaria ed. Martini p. 197, sqq. 
 •-' Eiiil. I.s.284,III., b. 10. 
 
 Q 
 
242 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 especially, have urgently suggested the Egyptian writing materials, 
 namely the Byssus and the Papyrus shrub. But whilst it is not to 
 be denied that the Hebrews for other purposes borrowed the use of 
 both these from the Egyptians, there is no certain evidence of their 
 having employed them as materials for writing. The marked 
 distinction between hieroglyphic and alphabetic writing must not 
 be overlooked hers ; and, besides, th^ more definite notices in the 
 Pentateuch appear to furnish evidence against it (see under.) 
 
 We possess, for instance, in the first place a very weighty 
 testimony in favour of the ancient writing materials of the Hither- 
 Asiatics, in Herod. V. 68. After saying that the lonians had 
 received writings from the Phoenicians he proceeds: koI ra<i 
 /3i/3\ov<i Sicjidepa^ KoKeovcn airo rov TTcCkaiov ol "Icove^;, otl Kore ev 
 cnrdvL /SifiXaiv e-^pecovro Si(j)6ipr]at alyerjat re Kal olerjac en he to 
 Kar ifie ttoWoI roiv /Sap^dpcov e? TOtaura? hi^depm fypdipovcrt. 
 The only dubious point here is how high Herodotus places the 
 antiquity of tlie Papyrus among the Greeks. This, however, is 
 undoubted, that he treats writing on skins^ as the oldest form among 
 the Greeks, whilst at the same time he represents its origin as 
 foreign, and so introduced along with writing by Cadmus. How 
 this writing was diifused in Asia appears from the circumstance of 
 Diodorus ascribing ^aaiXiKol SiSOepac to the ancient Persians ; 
 it was found also among the Cyprians, where the writing-master 
 was called 8i(ji9epdXot(f)o'i ;* the Lacedemonians had their most 
 ancient writings (the so-called a-KvruXr]) on leather.^ Thus a 
 primitive alphabetic writing, and the use of parchment by the 
 Hither- Asiatic nations as intimately connected therewith, stands 
 historically probable ; and hence we are necessitated to ascribe to 
 the Hebrews also the primitive knowledge of both, and to concede 
 their connection in this respect expressly with the Phoenicians. 
 
 This probability finds further confirmation in the old-Hebrew 
 word "^Qp. This signifies properly sometliing scraped or shaved off, 
 
 1 Comp. Nitzsch, Histor. Horn. p. 82, sq. 
 
 2 SL(p6ipai. See also on the word Babr ad Ctesiam, p. 18. 
 
 3 It is to tbis alone that tlie utto toC iraXaiou cm refer. 
 
 4 See Hesychius s. v. und ITemsterliuis ad Pollnc.X. 57. 
 
 5 Comp. Tliuoyd, I. 131 and the Scholiast, thereon ; Pindar, Olmp. VI. 91 and the 
 Scholiast ; Xeuoph., llellen. III., iii., 8, 9, V. ii. 31, 37 ; Plutarch., Artax. 6; Diodor. Sic 
 XII., 106 ; Gell. N. A. XVII., 9, &c. • 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 243 
 
 and was, as the Aramaic usage of the stem-root shows,j constantly used 
 of the scraping off or shaving away of the hair. Hence we cannot 
 concede, that the word is used of other writing materials than skins 
 of animals. Etymology is here as demonstrative as in Bicpdepa (from 
 Be(f)o), to full, to curry)., which at a later period came to signify 
 boo/c. 
 
 Of especial weight for our object is the passage Num. v. 23. 
 Here it is presumed that the material on which the writing was, did 
 not dissolve by the water, but only that the writing itself was thereby 
 washed off. In this case paper is excluded. On the other hand, 
 the writing must have been with in/c, otherwise it could not have 
 been so easily obliterated,* a circumstance which also excludes the 
 Byssus. — Accordant with this it is not surprising that in the Davidic 
 age there should be mention made already of rolls i^y^^'t^)' ^^• 
 xl. 8,^ and it is throughout arbitrary in recent writers^ to make this 
 word immigrate among the Hebrews from the Chaldeans first in 
 the time of the captivity ; comp. also Ezek. ii. 9. In Jer. xxxvi. 
 also the same method of writing is presented to us which, from its 
 earlier traces, we must admit as the received one. Here, and also 
 in Ezek. ix. 3, certain things belonging to writing are mentioned.^ 
 On the whole, we cannot detect the special steps of the progress 
 of the art of writing among the Hebrews, and in this respect the 
 unchanging character of the East makes itself apparent. The only 
 instance of an exception is the mention of a swi/l writer, Ps. xlv. 
 2 (comp. Ez. vii. 0), from which we may infer that in the flourishing 
 
 1 Comp. e.gr. 'Ez. xliv. 20; Acts xviii. 18 in the Pesch. ; Cod. Nasir. III. p. 22, ed. 
 Norberg; Misbuab t. IV. p. 218, ed. Surenbus. — Heuce 1 . c^rct . Talni. siSD, toiisor. 
 
 2 Witb Eicbborn, Einl. I. s. 183, comp. also Winer, Lex. p. 680. 
 
 3 Thus alone can the words S'^'niatn '^tt-?s n^to be understood. They are erroneously 
 interpreted by Le Clerc. 
 
 1 Hence also the Talmud, in explanation of this passage, says, The writing was 
 with ink, ("["n), Misbnah III. p. 206 ed. Surenh. — For the rest comp. the Lit. Anz. 1. c. 
 s. 262. 
 
 5 Comp. also the verb ^Vi, to roll together, of a book, Is. xxxiv. 4. 
 
 6 Geseuius, Tbes. I. p. 287; Ilitzig on Jes. s. 395. 
 
 7 Namely Ink ii^ (so called from its black colour), comp. Quandt, Diss, de V^ sive 
 atramento Hebr., Eegiom. 1713 ; -^tpn "^yp, the knife of the itriter, the scalprum librarium 
 of the Romans, Sueton., Vitell. cap. ii. ; "i;bn nsp Ink-holder, apparatus for writing 
 fastened to the side of the writer (comp. Ch. B. Michaelis in Pott. Syll. Comm. II. p. 
 75, sq.), like the Versinn, Dewattar (Inkhorn-bearer), Olearius, Reisebesch. II. s. 446. 
 
 Q 2 
 
244 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 time of David and Solomon, dexterity in writing was reckoned 
 among the properties of an author, a poet, &c.^ 
 
 We have only farther to notice an objection which has been urged 
 against the early use of skins as maleiial for writing. Following 
 Weber, Gesch. der Schreibkunst, s. 62, ft\, 105, Hartmann, Lib. 
 cit. s. 687, ff., suggests that the extraordinary love of cleanliness 
 among the Egyptians (Herod. II. 37) would render the preparation 
 of the skins of animals impossible, and in general that, as worship- 
 pers of animals, they would have regarded this as a crime. But 
 this assertion is not in itself correct. The Egyptian craftsmen 
 were, as it happens, distinguished for the preparation of leather, 
 which naturally they prepared from the skins of such beasts as were 
 not esteemed holy.^ But this objection is further aside from the 
 point, inasmuch as it is not the Egyptians, but the Hebrews and 
 their writing material, about which our enquiry is, and, as has been 
 seen, the latter may in this respect be viewed quite independently 
 of the former. As regards the Hebrews, there were among them " in 
 use skins, furs, leather for various purposes, and the preparation 
 of these to a great degree of Jineness must have been known to 
 the Hebrews, Exod. xxv. 5." De Wette, Archaeol. § 110. Also 
 Lev. xiii. 48, mention is made of preparation of leather. If we 
 assume in this case such traffic with skins as, according to Homer 
 (II. VII. 474), was driven, and also such leather manufactures as 
 he mentions especially among the Trojans {e.gr. II. VI. 118 ; 
 XX. 276), the latter doubt will quite disappear. 
 
 § 46. MORE EXTENSIVE GllAPHIC DEVELOPMENT OF ALPHABETIC 
 WRITING IN GENERAL. 
 
 The changes which happen to any writing cannot be understood 
 without respect being had to the country and people where that 
 was in use. Writing has consequently been likened to the plants 
 on which, when they are transplanted, climate and soil exert an 
 influence (Kopp. 11. s. 105.) Also the pecdiar hue which writing 
 acquires from a nation must, in the case of an arbitrary writing, 
 
 1 Similarly the Arabs ; comp. e. yr. Abulola in Scbeid ad Cant. Hisk. p. 247. 
 a Comp. Heerer, Ideen IV. s. 141 ; Scblosser, Uuiversalbist. Uebers. I. s. 195 ; Literar. 
 Anz. ). 0. s. 20."^. 
 
TEXT OF THK OLD TKBl'AMENT. 245 
 
 be SO much tlio more adjusted to it, inasmuch as it is nature itself 
 which, in a certain degree, meets us therein. As all artistic life is 
 peculiarly national, so also is writing ; only that in the case of 
 writing this forms but the one side of the consideration, and must 
 never be separated from the other side, the uses, the requirements 
 of writing. A people of little intellectual vivacity, and which yet 
 stands at the lower stages of a higher intellectual culture, will 
 possess only a very stationary character of writing; on the con- 
 trary, a highly developed and literarily industrious people bethink 
 themselves of the further cultivation of their writing, nay, in such 
 a case are necessitated thereto. 
 
 In this way a writing is improved in the first instance under the 
 stimulus of need. If there be possessed a convenient material for 
 writing, there arises of itself a readiness in writing, by which more 
 or less the original character is defaced and corrupted, inasmuch as 
 the principle of use is here the predominant. The cursive character 
 which in this way arises displays itself partly in slighter marking 
 of the letters, according to their general outlines and principal 
 parts ; partly in joining letters together (in writing one avoids 
 frequent lifting of the hand); partly in lengthening or turning up 
 the final letters with a view of proceeding more easily by a free 
 sweep from the point at which the constraint of the conjoined 
 writing ceases to what follows. 
 
 This tachygraphic principle is opposed to that which commonly 
 comes into operation at a later period in every cultivated writing — 
 the calligraphic principle,^ in which the aesthetic interests of the 
 writing are expressed. Such an artistic impulse finds its nearest 
 occasion in the higher and holy destination of the writing : the 
 religious interest produces here, as in general, the artistic :2 holy, 
 and especially-revered books demand a finer, more careful, to a 
 certain extent a holy, written character. Such a character is found, 
 e.yr. in the Syriac Estraixjelo, i.e. Gospel- writing (Adler N. T. 
 verso Syr., p. 4, sq.), the Kujic character in the Koran (Ewald Gr. 
 Ar. I. i'i.) Hereby the national taste chiefly shows itself, and the 
 more general artistic tendency comes out more in the writing. Thus 
 in the Ethiopic writing we find the regular figures used to be in 
 
 1 See tiie excellent development of this by Hupfeld, Stud, und Krit. 1830, II. 266, (T. 
 
 2 See O. Muller, Archneol. d. Kanst. s. 15.— [English Trans, bv Leitch, p. II — 
 Tr.] 
 
240 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 striking correspondeace with the architecture of the people, and the 
 same observation applies to the Gothic writing.^ — The calhgraphic 
 written character expresses itself, in accordance with this its origin 
 and determination, in a retrogression to the alphabet as undis- 
 figured by the cursive writing, in a special symmetry of stroke, in 
 the separation of the letters united in the cursive character, in new 
 decorations and flourishes. 
 
 ^. 47. DEVELOPMENT OF THE HEBREW WRITING. 
 
 From these more general palaeographic investigations, we must 
 proceed to the consideration of the development of the Hebrew 
 writing. To this end we must go back to its oldest monuments, 
 and, by comparing these with the more recent, observe its advances; 
 we must also compare the (for this especially important) descriptions 
 of the written character, so as to be able to follow historically the 
 chronological development. 
 
 The oldest literary documents we possess, reach only to the 
 middle of the second century before Christ ; they are the coins 
 struck under the Asmonean Princes, the authenticity of which has 
 been disputed, but only to be proved in the clearest manner.^ The 
 letters found on them have the greatest similarity and affinity to 
 the Samaritan writing, which among this people has with great 
 stability endured even to the latest times.^ The Samaritans received 
 their Pentateuch first, according to some historical evidence, only 
 in the Macedonian age, and with it also the Jewish writing, which, 
 on this account, they have also with great stability preserved as 
 such, as a dead property that came to them from without. This 
 agreement shows clearly that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C., the 
 Jews had a written character which corresponded to the Samaritan 
 now known to us, but was essentially different from the later 
 Hebrew, and bore a stiff, antique, and inelegant character. 
 
 1 See Hupfeld Exercitt. Aetbiop. p. 2 and loc. cit. s. 271. 
 
 2 See Fr. P. Bayer, Nuramoriim Hebraeo-Samaiitanorum Vindicatio. Valentiae 1790. 
 4to. 
 
 3 Corap. Correspoiulance des Kamaritains do Naplouse publiee par S. de Sacy. 
 I'aris 1829. 
 
 ■1 Comp. llie Aufsatz in Tholuck's Liter. Aiizciger 18:)3. No. 39, IT. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 247 
 
 The result attained by Palaeographic investigations is now 
 confirmed by express historical testimony ; in the first instance 
 that of the Church Fathers. Julius Africanus (ap. Syncelli chron. 
 p. 83 and 88) sayr, : 70 ^afiapeiToov ap)(^ai6raT0v koI ')(^apaKTr;p<Tt 
 hidXaTTOv. KoX aX7]6h elvac koL irpSirov 'EjSpatOL fcaOofjLoXoy overt. 
 Origeu (see Montfaucon, Hexapl. IL p. 282) collected several 
 statements regarding the form of the j-^ among the Jews, (on 
 account of the passage Ezech. ix. 4.), and one of these declares 
 that in the old alphabet {ra dp^ala crroL'y^eca) the ]^ had the 
 form of a cross. He adds in another passage (Hex. I. 86) that 
 in certain codices of the LXX. the word Jehovah was v/ritten 
 with such old -Hebrew letters (^tl^palKoh apxaloc<i fypd/jL/xaai,), 
 and adds : (pacrl <yap top "EcrSpav 6repot,<; y^prjcraaQai p^era rrjv 
 al-^QjuaXooalav. These notices are all perfectly well founded ; not 
 simply in the general are the Samaritan and old-Hebrew identical, 
 but also the j-| in particular, in which the two chiefly differ, stands 
 in so close a graphic affinity that their earlier identity can hardly 
 be doubted. The rumour concerning Ezra is destitute of historical 
 value, but the statement, as respects its essential iroport, is thoroughly 
 founded. From the two Fathers above cited, Jerome constructed 
 his account (Prol. Gal. ad Libr. Regg. and Comment, ad Ezech. ix. 
 4.)^ To this we may add the testimony of the Talmudic tradition. 
 The ancient writing is called by the Talmud V^l, broken and 
 torn writing, a name which can relate only to the irregular and not 
 symmetrically closed lines of the ancient alphabet. 2 This name 
 is with them identical with i~)^^, the old-Hebrew writing in 
 opposition to the more recent "^-^V^jj^, and they affirm that the 
 former passed over after the captivity to the Samaritans (Kuthites, 
 
 1 Hence it appears incorrect in Kopp, overlooking the passage of Africanus, to set 
 forth the expressions of Jerome as interpolations of Origen (II. s. 169, If); still I cannot 
 agree with Geseiiius, Gesch. s. 150, and Hupfeld, 1. cit. s. 283, in thinking that 
 Jerome drew hi.s materials in this instance directly from Rabbinical tradition; this 
 applies only to the other fathers named. The only passage in which .leromc speaks from 
 his own observation is in the Ep. 136, ad Marcellam, for the explanation of which it 
 must be assumed that in his day the word Jehovah vv iis, by the Greeks who were not skilled 
 in Hebrew, written i;i a manner quite different from its original form ; comp. Eichhorn, 
 Einl I. 199. 
 
 2 What serves to support this view is the remark of E. Levi in Tr. Megilloth Hieros. 
 (see Buxtorf Dissertt. Philol. Theol. p. 176), that in the old writing n and >3 were not 
 shut (aifio). Plainly this mno is the opposite of yy"'. 
 
24 8 HISTORY (IF THE 
 
 Idiots).^ If we but consider the enmity of the Jews to the 
 Samaritans, such a tradition can be explained only on the suppo- 
 sition that it was based on the undeniable fact of the identity of the 
 two alphabets. 
 
 If now, in order to estimate ariglu this old Hebrew writing, we 
 compare it with the oldestknown Phoenician writing, the monuments 
 of which go back as far as the 2nd and 3rd centuaries before Christ, 
 we shall find a double relation existing between them. For one 
 thing the similarity of the collective letters of both is such as to 
 prove that the alphabets of both peoples were originally identical ; 
 some letters, as ^, "), entirely correspond. On the other hand, 
 however, each alphabet has its peculiarities. Among these may be 
 reckoned, that the letters in the old-Hebrew have a more angular 
 character ; soaie letters, as ^, -], ^ have, in place of the round head 
 of the Phoenician, already received an angular; several letters are 
 furnished with horizontal base-strokes which in the Phoenician 
 are quite wanting, or are made sloping (as ^, ^, 2) i letters as 
 •^ and v"* have received a new form suggested by tlie same angular 
 character. 
 
 From this it appears that even in the 2nd century B.C., the 
 Hebrew alphabet had already assumed a tendency towards cursive- 
 writing, whilst in the older time it more closely resembled the 
 Phoenician. This cursive character would be more obvious to us 
 were it not that the old Hebrew writing is known to us only from 
 inscriptions on coins. The Phoenician alphabet also, however, has 
 a cursive character, which, it is true, was more especially used in 
 the writing of common life, but which is also to be found on the 
 monuments. In accordance with this, we have to suppose that in 
 the Phoenician and old-Hebrew there was the formation of a 
 cursive character proceeding parallel the one to the other, yet 
 independently in both, in the 2nd century B.C. 
 
 In any case from this, as a beginning point, we must start in our 
 investigation of the Hebrew alphabet. For we possess nothing 
 
 1 Principal pnssiiges : GemHrftbabyl. Sanliedrin f. 21, 2, sq. Megillah Hieros. f. 71, 2. 
 see Biixtorf 1. cit. p. 196, sq. Voisin in Rayra. Mart. puij. fid. p. 105, Carpz. 
 
 2 Comp. bere once for all the fable of writing in Knppll., s. 157, comp. s. 221, if. (also 
 in Eichhorn's Einl. I., s. 194, 4tf Ansg.), after which that given by Gesenius in De 
 VVette's Arcliaol. 9.28l!, 2te Ausg., is elaborated. 
 
 3 See Hupfeld.l.. ('.,8.281. 
 
 4 See Kopp, I. 2^9, ff., II. 21."). 
 
TKxr o[< THE OLD ikstamp:nt. 24 9 
 
 which in point of lime transcends the Phoenician monuments. The 
 only thing of greater age is the Babylonian brick-work, which 
 Kopp has subjected to an exact examination (II. 151, fF.), and 
 which has been concluded on good grounds to belong to the 6th 
 century B.c.^ From this all that can be inferred is, that it had an 
 analogous character fundamentally to the Phoenician, only it was 
 ruder and less shapely ; but from a monument as yet, so far as 
 regards the meaning, but imperfectly deciphered, we can obtain at 
 the best but a very imperfect idea of the most ancient Semitic 
 writing. 
 
 § 48. CONTINUATION. TRANSITION OF THE OLD-HliBRhW 
 WRITING INTO THE SQUARE-WRITING. 
 
 A new advance in the formation of the old Semitic alphabet 
 appears on the Aramaic monuments, to wit, in the first place the 
 older, the Stone of Carpentras and some coins hereto belonging,' 
 and the later, the Palmyrene inscriptions from the 2nd to the 3rd 
 century a c.3 A cursive character appears here already much more 
 ornamented and comprehensive than in the older writing. Thus 
 the older Aramaic writing shows a separation of the heads which 
 are closed in the Phoenician (corap.the letters^. -y,^,-^), and in the 
 later this tendency has so increased that even we find a trace of a 
 final letter in the writing of the Nun.* A calligraphic principle 
 has here also exerted its influence ; the later Aramaic writing 
 is especially symmetrical, and many letters are furnished with 
 flourishes (as ^, -7, •^, j-y. ^, p.) 
 
 To this Aramaic written character the Hebrew square writing 
 joins itself in such a way that it appears as a middle member 
 between the old Hebrew and the more recent. The already begun 
 development of writing is here only still further advanced, and that 
 not merely as a cursive writing (rounding off of the figures, binding 
 strokes, elongation of final letters^), but also quite specially as 
 
 1 See Kopp II., 156 ; Eiclihoin I., 191. 
 
 2 See them described iu Kopp II. 22G -244. 
 
 3 See Kopp II. 246—267. 
 
 4 Comp. Hupfeld, 1. e. s. 261, ff., 2G5. 
 
 5 Hupfeld, s. 262, ff. 
 
250 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 ornamental writing, whence the constant uniformity of the writing, 
 its regular separation, and the ridges and sharp tops (apices) 
 applied to the letters have proceeded. 
 
 This palaeographic determination must he still more closely fixed 
 historically. For the age of these Aramaic documents cannot here 
 decide, because " the antiquity of the inscriptions is not tantamount 
 to the antiquity of the writing in which they are executed, and there 
 is nothing to prevent our assuming its existence one or two hundred 
 years earlier, in the mere fact that no monument of it now remains 
 belonging to so early a period."" An historical finger-post, however, 
 we have first in the already adduced statements of Origen, Jul. 
 Africanus, and Jerome, according to which in their time the 
 writing we now have must have been extant ; Jerome expressly 
 describes the letters so far minutely that no doubt can be entertained 
 as to their identity with ours. 3 So also not only the Gemara 
 contains very exact observations, such as presuppose the existence 
 of our alphabet,* but even the Mishnah presupposes it. Thus 
 when it is said, Megillah II. p. 390, ed. Surenh., the Tephillin and 
 the Mesusoth can be written only with square letters (ji'^'^'itl}^), 
 this is understood according to analogy of the Thorah. In what 
 high reverence this kind of writing was held appears from this, that 
 it was regarded as the most essential requisite in the copying of 
 the sacred books, since otherwise the observance of the other 
 prescriptions was of no avail (Megillah II. p. 392.) In like manner 
 the old and the new Hebrew writing were contrasted with each 
 other, and the former treated as profane (Jadaim VI., 490, comp. 
 Bartonora, in loo.) Also from Matt. v. 18 there is proved, 
 at once from the mention of the Jod as the smallest letter, 
 that there must have been a change of the old Hebrew writing, 
 as with it that allusion could not have been made, and farther 
 from the fxia Kepala, that already at that time the letters were 
 furnished with the points appropriate to the square writing (p^jf^ 
 and Qi;^")!^) — for only to such can the Greek expression be 
 
 1 See Hv.pfeld, s. 275, ff. 
 
 2 Eichhorn,Einl. I. 200. 
 
 3 Thus be remarks on the resemblance of i and -, which differ from each other only 
 " parvo apice" (ad Eccles. viii. 6 ; ad Oseam ix. 12), of the 3 and 7 (ad Amos vii. 1), &c. 
 He was acquainted also with the final letters, comp. P.iorinus exercitt. Bibl. I. 121, sq., 
 277, sq. Montfaucon Pratf. in Orig: Hexap. p 23, sq. Tycbsen im Eepertor. III. 140. 
 
 * Comp. Wahner, Autiquitates Ebraeorum I. 151, sq. ; also Iken, Dissert. Phil. 
 Theol. I, 3.3.5, sqq. ; Eiobborn, Einleit. 1. § 114. 
 
 1 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 251 
 
 referred^ — as these are givcD in the Talmud, Menachoth, fol. 29, 
 2, and consequently that already the calligraphic principle of the 
 square writing was predominant. 
 
 From these considerations it appears that this change of writing 
 must have taken place among the Hebrews already in the age 
 before Christ. With this may be conjoined the circumstance, that 
 the Aramaeans exercised an influence on the development of the 
 Hebrew written character, since the Jews, from the time that many 
 Jewish colonists were conveyed to Antioch under Seleucus Nicator 
 (Joseph. Antiqq. XII. 3, 1), lived in a very close intercourse with 
 them. This influence the Jews were then less able to withstand, 
 as their native tongue had already, from the time of the captivity, 
 been exposed to an Aramaic influence. 
 
 After the closing of the Canon, there arose undoubtedly a 
 strenuous endeavour among the Jews to multiply copies of the 
 same. That this was the case at least in the Maccabean age 
 appears certain from 1 Mace. i. 50, 57. What contributed 
 especially, however, to the cultivation of the present character was 
 the extensive church use of it ; such an origin authenticates already 
 the inner character of the writing. We have consequently, as most 
 fitting, to advert to the origin and progress of the synagogues, in 
 order to illustrate the kind of writing which advanced with them. 
 A principal employment in the synagogue was the reading and 
 interpretation of the law ; in the Mishnah we find exact prescriptions 
 for the regular course of this (II. p. 399, sq.) That it was at an 
 early period kept in carefully written and ornamented rolls is shewn 
 by the manner in which the Mishnah speaks of the careful preserva- 
 tion of such.^ In this way the church-life of that age produced a 
 church -writing peculiar, but altogether adapted to itself, in which 
 light it is already viewed even in the Mishnah. 
 
 1 TJiis is corroborated by the fact that these decorations of the letters are used in 
 simihir proverbial sentences by the Rabbins as in the New Testament. See Schbttgen, 
 Hor. ad h. 1. 
 
 Most probably the expression Kspaia, in accordance with its derivative from Kipa%, is 
 
 a verbal translation of the Rabbinical pt ("jjj^), properly weapon, in the Talmud of 
 the apices litterarum, Menach. f. 29,2; Shabbat, f. 105, 1. Some may, however, with 
 Iken, 1. cit. p. 350, prefer the Rabb: "('•pi:> used in the same sense; compare the Arab. 
 r^Xs. of twisted horns, 
 ■i See Hartmann, Die Enge Verbind, des A. & N. T. s. 253. 
 
252 IffSrOKY OF THE 
 
 ^ 49. FURTHER HISTORY OF THE SQUARE WRITING. DIFFERENT 
 VIEWS AS TO ITS RISE. 
 
 Such beiug the antiquity of the Hebrew square writing, it is only 
 
 what was to be expected, that already the later Talmudists should 
 
 be without any exact information as to its origin, which was 
 
 gradual, and attributable rather to circumstances than to individuals. 
 
 Hence even the Mislinah enters upon nothing in the way of exact 
 
 statement on this subject, but simply adduces the names i-^^^ 2r\^ 
 
 for the old, and "i-^itlji^ ''3 for the more recent writing, as those 
 
 which had come down from an earlier age. At length the 
 
 Gemara seeks to dispel the gloom overshadowing this subject ; but 
 
 how very uncertain opinions were regarding it is shown by the 
 
 chief passages Tr. Sanhedrin Babyl. fol. 21,2; 22, 1. According 
 
 to some Kabbins, there has been no change in the writing at all ; 
 
 R. Jehudah, on the contrary, assumes a change ; nevertheless he 
 
 asserts the restoration of the ancient writing in the time of Ezra, and 
 
 he explains the name n'''-\1t2)^^ ^J IT^tL^i^^' beata (holy writing) ; R. 
 
 Josi asserts its change, which he traces to Ezra, ^ and in accordance 
 
 with this he intimates of the name jl'^^^IU^fc^' ^^^^^ ^^is alphabet was 
 
 introduced out of Asshur (Babylon) by the Jews (an?2V I^Dt!) 
 
 'nUi^^'^-) These notices are clearly such as to indicate that they 
 
 are made to suit opinions ; though, on the one hand, they evince 
 
 the high antiquity of the name n"^"^')t2?t^ (which had become quite 
 
 unintelligible to the Rabbins), they have, on the other, no greater 
 
 value in themselves than much more recent ones, and must undergo 
 
 a similar testing ; they fail, as soon as the opinion on which they 
 
 rest is proved incorrect." 
 
 It is conceivable how, to tiie majority of the later Rabbins, the 
 opinion of the Gemara, as to the high antiquity of the square 
 writing, should have been acceptable, especially to the Cabbalists 
 
 1 To justify this he lauds Ezra thus : Dignus fiiisset Ezras, ut per manus ipsiiis daretur 
 lex Israelis, nisi praecessisset ipsum Moses. 
 
 ■2 In like manner the name for the old Hebrew writing ns3n''5 (Sauhedr. f. 21, 2) is 
 another such expression no longer understood, but preserved by tradition, and the 
 explanation of which is now hardly possible, see Gesen. Gesch. s. 145. — The later name 
 for the square writing is besides 3*3^12; in the Talmud it is called also nan na\-'3, 
 spriptura iutegra, in whieh all the rules of the Talmud have been strictly ob.sirvcd. 
 Sohabb. fol. 103, 2. 
 
 2 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 268 
 
 who include this among Mosaic traditions.^ Only the forced 
 meaning of tlie namej-ii-^i^^^ does not meet with the general assent; 
 already Maimonides remarks, in reference to this, that the writing 
 is so called eo quod ilia numquam mutetur neque similes literas 
 habeat, quia literae ipsius dissimiles sunt et quia nulla litera adhaeret 
 akeri in serie scriptionis, quod in nulla alia scriptura fieri solet 
 quam in hac." So also Abraham de Balmis,Gramm. c. 1, explains 
 the name rT^rWDlb^^ rTHU^VTi' fectissima in litteris suis. This 
 conducts to the right meaning of the expression, which already 
 has been given by J. D. Michaelis,^ but especially by Hupfeld,* 
 direct, strong, firm writing (t^^jj^ in the Talmud ratum,Jirmum, 
 stabile), consequently referring to the form of the letters, like the 
 
 later ^^"^^ quadratus, and the Arab. iXa***^, stable, columnar 
 writing, as opposed to the old writing V^'^, ragged, broken, irregular 
 writing. 
 
 To harmonize the mention of two kinds of writing in the 
 Talmud, several Rabbins assume, not being able to come at the 
 understanding of an historical development of the writing, that two 
 sorts of writing, a sacred and a profane, existed simultaneously. 
 Thus Bartenora ad Mishn. Jadaim c. 4, 5, R. Gedaliah in 
 Schalsheleth Hakabbah 89, 1, &c., see Hartmann Ling. Einl. 
 s. 22, fF. To this view many Christian scholars have assented (as 
 Postellus, Fuller, &c.), fis in this way they thought they could best, 
 at least efficiently, vindicate the antiquity of the square character 
 on historical grounds. This hypothesis was most fully constructed 
 and raised to respect by the younger Buxtorf in his Treatise de 
 Litterarum Hebraic, genuina antiquitate, and with him most of the 
 literati of the 17th century agreed.^ Nevertheless, already in 
 the 15th century this opinion had found opponents. R. Jos. 
 Albo in his Sepher Ikkarim, 3, 16, asserts a change adopted 
 by Ezra with the old-Hebrew writing, and since in this way 
 the security of the Textus receptus was rendered very doubtful, 
 this view was embraced by not only the most of the Catholic 
 
 1 Comp. Buxtorf iu 1. c, p. 178, sqq. 
 
 2 Ad Mislinam t. VI., p. 490, ed. Surenbus. 
 
 3 Orient. Bibl. XXII. s. 133. 
 
 4 Lib. cit. s. 296. 
 
 8 See for particulars Carpzc)v crit. sac. p. 227, sq. 
 
254 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 scholars, but also chiefly by Buxtort's opponenl, L. Capellus 
 (diatribe de veris et antiq. lit. Ebr., Amstelod. 1045), whom many 
 followed, because here to the historical controversy a critical, and to 
 this again a dogmatical significance was ascribed.^ — A middle course 
 has been adopted by more recent scholars, as Gesenius, Gesch. s. 
 156, flF., by whom the story of Ezra is regarded as having a basis 
 in truth, in so far as the square writing came to the Hebrews 
 at that time, and from Babylon, was used by them, and yet in 
 the time of the Maccabees the older Hebrew writing was not 
 quite superseded. Hartmann (Ling. Einl. s. 28, fF.) decides in 
 favour of a double writing which existed among the Hebrews 
 from an early period, a holy writing and a profane, and he 
 seeks in this way to justify the continuance of the square writing 
 with the writing on coins. Of all these opinions one can say 
 altogether with De Wette (Archaeologie, s. 290), that they now 
 possess only historical mark-worthiness. For since a more attentive 
 observation has been bestowed on the square writing in its relations 
 to the older Hebrew and other cognate writings, each hypothesis 
 has, through Palaeography, been cut ofi" from success. Kopp has 
 the great merit of having first opened a thorough palaeographic 
 investigation of this subject, in which he has been followed by 
 Eichhorn, Hupfeld, and Ewald (Hebr. Gr., s. 49, fif. 2te Ausg.), 
 who have carried it greatly forward. 
 
 § 50. THE SQUARE WRITING ON MONUMENTS. 
 
 The monuments for this are certainly very recent ; they are 
 manuscripts of which none can be held older than the 1 1th century. 
 From this it can hardly be concluded that these MSS. were 
 preceded by others with very different kind of strokes, on account of 
 the firm character of the writing, and on the whole no history of the 
 Heb. square writing can be gathered from them. The prescriptions 
 of the Talmud we find most carefully observed in the Synagogue rolls 
 (Eichhorn, Einl. II. ^ 345.) With more of freedom have the writers 
 of the other MSS. proceeded, though even here the departure is 
 connected with difi'erence of country, and has been by no means 
 
 1 See Carpzov, 1. c. p. 232, sq. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 255 
 
 yet adequately described as respects its essence and character.^ The 
 Jews themselves distinguish in the Synagogue rolls between an 
 Italian {Waelsh) character ("^"i^')'^ SH^^' ^^^^ by the Spanish 
 and eastern Jews, and the Tarn -writing received by the German and 
 Polish Jews. The chief distinction appears to consist in the 
 different form of the Coronaments ('ji^Ji-) The latter appellation 
 is said to be derived from a grandson of Raschi Tarn ; but probably 
 its origin is in a misunderstanding of the old (already noticed) 
 talmudic appellation HDH iH''Jl3 (Schabb. f. 103, 2), which finds 
 elsewhere in the Talmud its proper explanation in " Books written 
 according to the rule" (in^^niD □'^3,ir\lD' Gittin, f. 45, 2.)^ 
 
 What occurs elsewhere as a departure from the square character 
 is not at all fitted to serve for a history of the same. It is only 
 the product of carelessness, arbitrariness, and want of dexterity. 
 Such, for instance, is the alphabetum Jesuitarum communicated 
 by Montfaucon, written by a Greek calligrapher, which contains 
 nothing else than disfigurations and distortions of the square 
 character, so that the same consonant appears again and again in 
 a different form.^ The same is the case with other alphabets 
 communicated by Treschow, or the so-called alphabet of Rabanus 
 Maurus, containing letters which are clearly monstrosities, and 
 which are for Paleography as good as utterly worthless.* 
 
 In the middle ages there was formed from the square character 
 a current hand, the rabbinical writing, in which also some (but very 
 recent) biblical codices, but not properly biblical manuscripts, are 
 written. It bears the names Hitflp ill^nD (scriptura parva), and 
 t5p\Z??2' ^^^ meaning of which name is obscure.^ In this also 
 differences are to be discerned belonging to different countries.^ 
 
 1 Comp. Jabn Eiul. I. s. 433, fF., and the Literature in De Wette's Eiul. § HI, d. 
 
 2 See O. G. Tycbsen, tentamen de variis codd.Hebr. V, T. man. generibus p. 347, sq. 
 Hupfeld, 1. c. s. 278. 
 
 3 Comp. Kopp, 1. c. s. 275 ; Hupfeld, s. 288. 
 
 4 Comp. Kopp, 9. 273, 274, Eicbhorn, Einb II. 481. 
 
 5 Comp. Biixtorf, Lex. Cbald. Tahn. p. 2513 ; Eeland AnaL Rabbin, p. 15, sq. 
 
 6 Comp. Tycbsen, tentamen p, 313, sq, ; Belleimann de Palaeograpb. Hebr. p. 44. 
 
20() HISTORY OF THE 
 
 §51. APPENDAGES TO WRITING. VOWELS.^ PERIOD OF THK 
 LIVING LANGUAGE. 
 
 The question concerning the appendages to writing, depends most 
 intimately on this : — was the old Hebrew alphabet merely a 
 consonantal writing (or a syllable- writing), or did it comprehend 
 consonants and vowels alike in it ? This question may be answered 
 partly in an a priori philosophic, partly in a grammatico- analytic, 
 and partly in an hislorico-combining way. In the outset it may be 
 said that a syllabic writing, in the case of an otherwise completely 
 constructed alphabet, has something strange in it ; if a writing has 
 reached the point (as a sound writing) of representing and forming 
 the particular sounds with such exactness, it is highly probable 
 that there was a like analysis of the vowel sound. Certainly, in 
 reference to the latter a simple and as yet but commencing writing 
 may permit abbreviations or omissions in cases where nothing 
 essential is involved, conceiving in its inner unity the consonant 
 with its vowel-sound as one necessarily connected whole ; but this 
 assumes the insertion of only the nearest and simplest vowel-sound, 
 not at all the complete absence of these from the writing. 
 
 What supports this is, that as soon as we conceive the Hebrew 
 alphabet in its grammatical analysis, we find that it certainly 
 acknowledges its special sign for the ground-vowel a, because it is 
 the root and the stem of all the rest, the nearest and the most 
 original. On the other hand, the two other ground-vowels i and 
 u have alreadv found their distinctive marks, partly on account of 
 their inner relation to the a sound, partly on account of their 
 relation to the consonants, to which they form the transition.^ A 
 strict grammatical observation of the letters "^ and i shews their 
 oiiginal destination as vowels, and the old writing placed them 
 for the original pure sounds i and u as well as for the mixed 
 sounds e and o. 
 
 1 In keeping- with our theme we treat this subject also only in its historical 
 phenomena ; the internal arrangement and development of particulars belongs to 
 grammar. 
 
 2 Comp. Bockh on the passing of letters into each other, Studien von Daub iind 
 Creuzer IV. 376, AT. Hupfeld, Exercitt. Aethiop., § 3, in the Hermes Bd. XXXI., s. Ki, 
 tr., and in Jahn's Jahrb. f. Philol. uud Paedegog. 1829, I. 451, ff., Ewald, Gr. § M2, If., 
 2te Ausg. 
 
TEXT OF THE fJLD TESTAMENT. 257 
 
 With this internal observation of tlie language concurs also the 
 combination of the Semitic dialects. To this simple condition of 
 the vowels in the Hebrew writing a remarkable analogy is furnished 
 primarily by theEthiopicJu which also the letters Wawe and Jaman 
 are to be viewed as the only original vowel- signs ; and so likewise 
 have the Arabic and the Syriac preserved this mode of writing 
 with great constancy.' 
 
 Now of this old and simple vowel-system it must be said, that it 
 does not appear as one regularly carried through in the Hebrew 
 documents, but its usage was, on the whole, slight and uufrequent. 
 The writing does not here appear to have been developed pari 
 passu with the language, and there has thereby remained an 
 ambiguity in the former which only could be corrected and com- 
 pensated by the definiteneps of the living speech. Hence in the 
 later books of the Old Testament there is an evident advance in 
 the development of the wriiiiTg, inasmuch as the so-called scriptio 
 plena is here much more extensively used, and so the writing 
 indicates clearly an effort after greater distinctness. A very 
 remarkable testimony in this respect is furnished by the Samaritan 
 Pentateuch, in which this vocalisation is already very decidedly 
 adopted.^ Of weight also here are the Jewish coins of the 
 Maccabean age, as on them we find the same vocalisation, though 
 in this species of inscription the greatest parsimony in the use of 
 vocalisation was to be expected.^ 
 
 ^ 52. VOCALISATION OF THE LXX. AND OF ORIGEN. 
 
 The simple vowel-system is closely connected with the original 
 simpler formation and flexion of the words ; as this appears most 
 clearly by the comparison of the Dialects, in relation to which the 
 Hebrew vocalisation is the most complicated, and for all grammatical 
 relations the most distinctly marked, it is shown satisfactorily how 
 the old writing was content with that sparing notation of the 
 vowels.* To this simpler vocahsation, which is more nearly allied 
 
 1 See Ewald, Gr. Arab. § 75, sq. 
 
 2 Gesenius, de PeDtat. Saiuarit., p. 16, 53, 54. 
 
 3 Kopp.l. cit. ri., 112 and 124. 
 
 4 Comp. Hupfeld in tlie Hermes, S. 21,22. 
 
258 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 to that of tbe Dialects, that oftlie LXX. also incliues, a monuoient 
 of great importacce in this case, since it indicates the furthev 
 formation which the later vowel-system has experienced, and at 
 the same time its traditional rise as thoroughly independent and 
 complete in itself. This unity in the vocalisation system of the 
 I.XX. has long been acknowledged/ though it has not been 
 adequately estimated as to its rise, inasmuch as this can be known 
 only by a reference to the nature of the language and the vowel- 
 sounds^ 
 
 Thus there appears here the not-completed contraction of the 
 dipthongs ai and au into e and o : 'Ai\a/jb (oS'iy), ©aifiav 
 (Tt2'^p\). TavXwv {'^'\>^), Na^av (^23)' ^^- Exactly tbe same 
 appears in the Dialects. They change the vowelless Jod in the 
 beginning of a word into a pure vowel- sound, as ^^iji^l^ into 
 
 ISovTovv, as in the Syi'- r-^ ^'-''' r^^-^ I"^ place of the Chirek, 
 which with great constancy the Masoriies assume as an auxiliary 
 vowel, they have, like the Dialects, the original fuller A-sound ; 
 comp. MaSiav (lil^), Xafx-^wv (iVvl^^^^ty S and only occasionally 
 has this passed into another sound (as KeSpcov, "j'i'^ip)- So also 
 in the Segolate forms the original a frequently appears, as in the 
 Hebrew only in the Pause, as A/3e\, lacf^ed, Aafie^-^ The sheva 
 mobile appears here also, according to its origin, as a fluctuating 
 A-sound (as in '^afiovrjk, Za^ovXwv), as also in the Arabic^ 
 That the assimilation of vowels is in general much more extensive 
 here than in the more recent vowel system is proved by examples, 
 such as XohojjLa, ^oXofMoyv, Fofxappa.^ It has not been noticed 
 that there is a tendency of the guttural to the A-souuds, and 
 hence especially the Patach furtivum is often expressed by a 
 single e. 
 
 The same vocalisation is found also in the Hexapla of Origen,^ 
 
 1 Comp. e. gr. Hiller, Onomast. Sac. p. 706, sqq. Gesenius, Gescb., S. 191, ff. 
 
 a Hence also the opinion, that in this vocalisation only a provincial variety of (lie 
 old Hebrew occurs, appears erroneous (Gesen. Lebr. s. 33; Gescb. d. h. Spr., s. 208j, 
 to say nothing of the utterly uuhistorical basis on which it rests. 
 
 3 Comp. Michaelis, Lum. Syr., § 8. 
 
 + Comp. Hupfeld, 1. cit., s. 48. 
 
 5 Comp. Hupfeld, s. 53. 
 
 6 Comp. Hupfeld, s. 39. 
 
 ' Comp. MontfaucoD, Orig Hex. II., p. 397, sq. Gesenius, Gescb. s. 199. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2^)9 
 
 t])Ougli there are here some approximations to the later. Thus 
 e. gr. there appears as an auxiliary vowel already much more 
 frequently e instead of a ( ni^?:21' ^^A'''^' ^S^'X' l^^^^P)-> which 
 forms and indicates the trasition to the thinner i. 
 
 § 53. JEROME AND THE TALMUD. 
 
 A noticeable advance from this vocalisation towards the present 
 appears in the writings of Jerome. In general the earlier original 
 and simple has already assumed an artificial and very definite 
 character. Thus it is worthy of notice how Jerome already indicates 
 acquaintance with the Segolate forms according to the present 
 vocalisation, and hence writes always deber, re.sejjh, &c., whilst in 
 the earlier authorities the original form of these nouns, as Kapv 
 for 'j-^p, is found (see Gesenius, 1. cit. s. 200.) Since Jerome 
 frequently finds occasion to cite exactly the vocalisation of the text, 
 where the translations adduced by him difi^er from each other, it 
 appears that in general the exact form presents a vowel-construction 
 concurrent with that now in use ; e. gr. vvhen he says that q'i^ 
 may be read mijam or majim (ad Hos. xi. 10) ; nDi"1b^' <^^'^^^^ "'^ 
 aruha (Hos. xiii 3) ; Qi^^j^tl^, f^earim or seorini (Gen. xxvi. 
 1;^), &c. 
 
 It follows certainly from this that the Jews of that period, by 
 whose instruction Jerome was guided, had already adopted as their 
 own the vowel-pronunciation which now prevails. The decisiveness 
 also with which he in particulars follows the extant reading according 
 to the vowels, show show firmly settled in particulars the vocalisation 
 of the rabbinical tradition in his time was, since he could not permit 
 himself to depart from it. Compare e. gr. Ep. ad Damasum Qu. 2, 
 where he, in defending the (extant) reading, D'^t^^Ji' Exod. xiii. 
 18, says, " omnis Judaea conclamat et synagogarum consonant 
 universa subsellia."^ 
 
 On what are called the quiescent letters, Jerome expresses himself 
 so that one sees he holds '^ and i certainly for vowels ; this is 
 evident from the passages quoted by Capellus ;^ for he says, " Vav 
 
 1 See hereon more in Hupfeld, Stud. u. Krit. 1830, H. 3, s. 583, ff. 
 
 2 Arcanum puuctuationis revelalum. p. 68. 
 
 R 2 
 
260 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 litera quae apud Hebraeos pro O legitur," and " quura vocalibus 
 in medio literisperraro utantur Hebraei" (by wbicb only tbe writing 
 with a Jod can be intended). Of ^ and ^ be further expresses 
 himself so that he also calls them vocales hterae, an expression, 
 however, which he uses as identical with " aspirationes" (gutturals), 
 from which it appears that he understood thereby a class peculiar to 
 the Hebrews, consisting of especially weak letters.-^ 
 
 That Jerome, however, was acquainted with special reading 
 signs, or with our present rowel signs, must be very decidedly 
 denied. Not only is there no express mention of these anywhere 
 in his writings, but he, besides, describes the words generally simply 
 according to their consonants, and calls this, scriptum, scrihitur ; 
 whilst the vowels he designates by the expression lectuni, legitur, 
 clearly enough in this way discriminating the pronunciation from 
 what appeared in the writing as the substance or basis thereof, the 
 consonant. When he expresses himself decidedly of the former, 
 he is determined thereto, partly by the context, partly by those 
 translations which adhere closely to the text (Aquila, Symmachus, 
 Theodotion), but especially by the rabbinical tradition of which he 
 was in possession, and on which he depended so much in his 
 judgments respecting the details of the canonical text, as well as 
 respecting the canon in general (see above ch. i.).^ The term 
 " accentus" sometimes taken in the sense of reading signs, is to 
 be referred, according to the Greek and Latin usage of the gramma- 
 rians, wholly and alone to the i^ronunciation of the vowels and 
 some consonants (hence accentus = soui, Ep. ad Evagr. 125), as 
 also to the marks by which this was indicated in writing^ 
 
 This is, however, at the same time the reason why Jerome, in 
 reference to the vowel-pronunciation of a word, not unfrequently 
 fluctuates, despite his adherence to the Jewish tradition, nay, 
 frequently not only speaks of the ambiguitas of the words (see Ep. 
 ad. Damasum 125), and imputes error on this ground to the older 
 translators as " verbi ambiguitate decepti," ad Jes. xxiv. ;)), but him- 
 self even against the traditional vocalisation arrives at an erroneous 
 
 1 See JaLii, Einl. I. 336, 337, nnd on y Gesenius, Lehrg. s. 20. 
 
 2 See tbe raiuuter proof of this iu Ilupfeld, 1. e. s. 571, ff. 
 
 3 See Hupfeld, S.580, flf. [See also Kitto's Journal of Sncred Literature, No. VI. 
 p. 287.— Tfi.] 
 
TEXT OF THIi OLD TESTAMENT. 261 
 
 conclusiou, because he had lost the form on which it depended, 
 and his knowledge of tradition did not suf&ce to supply it.^ 
 
 The best help for the just estimation of Jerome and his position 
 in relation to tradition and the written text is furnished by the 
 Talmud. In the Talmud also appears a very firm traditional 
 basis for the text as respects its vowels no less than the consonants. 
 The vocalisation of the Talmudists is a throughout consistent 
 whole, essentially belonging to the text, whose meaning consequently 
 is also simpler and more literal, according to the adage "ji^ t^lp^^H 
 '^"T"^?2 t^^l'^ 1l:31\iJQ nunquam scriptura, {i.e., the ecclesiastically 
 acknowledged, the received canonical text,) egreditur e simplicitate 
 sua ; comp. Buxtorf Lex. p. 2 i 1 7. Unimpeachable, however, as this 
 text is, it is nevertheless subject, according to Talmudic notions, to 
 the most diverse interpretations, for the purpose, by means of tliem, 
 of supporting and elucidating a great multitude of new statutes and 
 arrangements. Hence they use the ecclesiastically constituted text 
 in such a way that they allow themselves the most diversified 
 alterations of it, without, however, in any way casting disrepute on 
 its proper constitution. For our present object, the vocalisation of 
 the text, there are in this respect two modes of textual variations 
 of weight; in the first place, when a biblical sentence had to be 
 adduced as a simple help to the memory, which does not, according to 
 its proper reading, suit for this, it was altered, and that principally 
 in the vocalisation, a method which is constantly denoted by the 
 formula p i^^fc^ p ^"SpTy ^^ ("read not so, but so"), e. gr., 
 rri^Stl) ^°^' rt\tyD C^^- ^^^i- ^)' Berachoth fol. 7, 1 ;'" and in the 
 second place, even where an actual argument, not a mere auxiliary 
 reason,^ had to be delivered (n'^^"^), the text was altered 
 as far as respects the vowels, without, however, regarding the 
 critical merits of the case, and the Eabbins who were involved in a 
 controversy decided either for the textual reading or for the altered 
 reading (ji'^IDD) The former method is designated i^*ip^^ Q^, 
 
 1 See tlie passages in Moriiius, leling. primaeva, p. 403, sq. Hupfeld, s. 585, ff. 
 
 2 Comp. hereon Maimonides, More Nevocbim iii. c. 42 p. 473. Buxtorf (Arabic in 
 Hottinger Thes Pbilol. p. 214), auJ after bim Buxtorf, Tib. c. 9. Buxtorf fil. de puncl 
 antiq. et orig. p. 97, sqq. Wagenseil, ad tr. Sotab p. G8. Surenbus. (iifiX. kutuW. p. 41. 
 sq. Wabiier, Antiqq. Heb. I. § 212. Hupfield, 1. c. S. 5.55 s. 
 
 3 srisijas, fulcinieutum, adminiculura (^'ao), wbat only reminds of soinetbing (-'at 
 -3^'?). Comp. Cocceius ad Tr. Saiihedr. p, 81. 
 
202 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 (determination according to tlie text), the latter ^"^10?^/ Ot^ 
 (determination according to the received reading.)^ 
 
 In both cases it is quite evident how on the one hand the Talmud 
 presupposes the most definite vov^el-pronunciation, and proceeds on 
 this as the basis of its argumentation, whilst on the other there 
 must have been a total absence of vowel-si^ns, for the ordinances 
 introduced through the difi'erence of the Mikra and the MasoretJi 
 could have had no existence had not the non-vocalised text afforded 
 free scope for these diverse explanations of the text. Thus it must 
 be decidedly denied that there are any traces of vowel-signs in the 
 Talmud. The passages in which Q^T^i^t^ ^^^ mentioned (Megillah 
 Hieros. fol. 75 ; Nedarim Babyl. fol. 37 ; Beracholh fol. 02, 2), 
 cannot relate to this, for both the expression and the context lead 
 us to the signification of position, sententia, and thus it is only of 
 pauses in the reading, points of division that the passages speak, 
 what the Mishnah simply calls D*ip')C)iQ (Megillah c. 4.)* 
 
 § r)4. THE VOW^EL SIGNS OF THE MASORETES. 
 
 Our investigations hitherto have landed us in the simple negative 
 result that we must regard the Talmud as having been completed 
 before the vowel-signs were introduced. This period, occupied 
 alone with the further extension of the law, could not attend to 
 these, and needed not such aids, which would have been only 
 impediments to the reaching of its objects, and troublesome. In 
 it the maxim laid down in the Tr. Gittin fol. 00, would be held 
 fast with great tenacity, that tlie written word must not be taught 
 orally, and as httle, conversely, the traditional (^i^^\lj D'^'^n 
 pfg) in writing. This prohibition comprehends consequently all that 
 falls under the head of external appendaye to the written letters 
 (not the determinations deduced by conclusions and argumentations 
 from them), since, full of superstitious reverence for them, they 
 would not venture to defile them with aught foreign. 
 
 But a twofold circumstance contributed to give this opinion 
 another direction, and not only occasioned the marking of the vowels, 
 but also gave rise to their appearing under their present forms. 
 
 1 Thus the difterence regarding the common eating of tlie Paschal lamb, Pesachim 
 fol. 86, 1, 2, rests on tiie difference between the readings 55K'' iiud ^2S'', Exod. xii. 4<J. 
 
 2 Pc' Hiipfi'l.l.s. 565. De WettP. Kinl. § 77. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 263 
 
 ]. On the closing of the Talmud there arose among the Jews a 
 new sort of literary activity, which sought to illustrate the ancient 
 holy text, by ajjpending to it in writing whatever could contribute 
 to its more exact determination, or to the exposition of its meaning. 
 Thus what at an earlier period appeared as a prohibition, came now, 
 " through the pressure of circumstances,"^ to be sanctioned ; and 
 the Masoretes, who were striving for this object, saw themselves 
 necessitated, on account of it, to note exactly also the pronunciation 
 of each word. In the Talmud this was expressly assigned to 
 tradition, and consequently was not marked, at least was not 
 denoted by anything appended to the text.' The Masoretes, 
 however, noted this as well as other closer determinations of the 
 text in the Talmud f and so retained to the minutest part the old 
 traditions in writing. The procedure of the Masoretes, in regard to 
 the vocahsation, is consequently not at all arbitrary, but must be 
 viewed as strictly regulated by adherence to the tradition handed 
 down to them. 
 
 In this way the vowel-signs, as appendages to the writing, stand 
 closely connected with the Masoretic marginal remarks or glosses.* 
 Hence, whilst the ancient text was conscientiously perpetuated, 
 without any appendages (the Ketib), the marginal reading received 
 its closer determination by the vowel-signs (the Keri.) Hence the 
 points must constantly be read in connection with the marginal 
 reading. On this account also it was impossible that before the 
 rise of the Keri a written vocalisation could so much as be thouglit 
 of; and so, as soon as tradition ceased to manifest vitality, and the 
 materials preserved by it had to be transmitted along the path of 
 the dead, the pronunciation of the words must have appeared as 
 that which most urgently required to be determined in writing. — 
 As, however, these appendages to writing were ever regarded as 
 something foreign, and not belonging to the text, it was only 
 
 1 As tbe Rabbins, byway of excusing themselves, express it; conip. Buxtorf, tie 
 aiitiq punct. p. i'Z, sq. 
 
 - Comp. Nedarim Babyl. fol. 37, 2, where tbe a"'"i".3 S-'ptt is expressly referred to the 
 pronunciation of the words (whether to reaii ■^•■'^s aiez or erez, d^'^'^'o mizraim or mizrim) 
 and this is ascribed to tradition (■'3'^0'a l^-m") nD^n), comp. Waljner, Autiq Heb. I. 
 § 210. 
 
 3 Which consequently are also joined witii the Mikra Sopherini, I'r. Neditr. 1. cit. Sec 
 Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 40, sq. 
 
 + See Kwald. Or. s. 60, 2 te Aufl. 
 
^Oi HISTORY OF THE 
 
 natural that manuscripts, destined for private use, should be furnished 
 with them. The Synagogue rolls, as the sacred manuscripts, 
 destined for ecclesiastical use, could not admit of vowels ;^ for the 
 model after which they were to be written was already prescribed in 
 the Talmud as an unalterable standard.'^ 
 
 2. As the textual studies of the Masoretic period in the general 
 were stimulated by the external condition of the Jews, and especially 
 their contact with the Arabs and Syrians, it is most probable that 
 it is to this source that the vocalisation owes its rise. For the 
 Hebrew vowel-system, as respects its philological side, stands con- 
 nected with that of these two peoples, and is to be viewed as a further 
 development, having peculiarities of its own, but proceeding from 
 this.^ Now, since the Syrians and Arabians can be proved to have 
 ah'eady had a vocalisation in the seventh century, there is a 
 probability of an historical connection in this respect between them 
 and the Jews. For whilst at that time talmudic learning and a 
 number of distinguished Kabbins flourished in the Babylonian 
 schools,'* these studies gradually died out of those in Palestine ; 
 and especially in Tiberias, which was already famous among the 
 oldest Jewish grammarians^ on account of its pure and graceful 
 pronunciation of the Hebrew,** the studies assumed specifically, 
 under Syrian influence, a direction towards grammar and the text. 
 
 A vowel notation constructed in this way cannot be regarded as 
 thework of one man, or of a sliort time ; the analogy of the 
 vocalisation with which it is aUied, suggests a gradual rise of it. 
 We can seek in outward relations only the commencement and first 
 impulse to this business ; the proper progressive formation is to be 
 viewed as an independent effort of the Masoretes. This, however, 
 consists in nothing else than in a progressively exacter determination 
 
 1 Hence it is said iu Scbulchan Aruch : " A pointed roll is profane (^"02), even after 
 the points may Lave been removed from it." See Bustorf de Ant. p. 40, sq., iu relation to 
 which the reason of R. Bechai, that the pointed text contains only one (the literal) sense, 
 the unpointed, on the contrary, a plurality of senses (Buxtorf, p. 46), is worthy of 
 notice. — That the Karaites form an exception in this respect is probable, but as yet not 
 historically certain ; see 0. G. Tyschen, in the Eepertor, III. s. 103. 
 
 2 For the same reason also among the Syrians and Muhammedans the opposite 
 I'revailed, since with them the pointed text itself was established as the canonical. 
 
 3 See Hupfeld, 1. c. 4, s. 785, ff. 
 
 4 Comp. Hottingfr, Histor. Ecclcs. N. T. I. 421, sf^., 528, sq., 660, sq. 
 
 5 Comp. Buxtorf do antiq. punct. p. 23, sq. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 266 
 
 of the sound, with a view of denoting its finest shades [nua/ices] ,- 
 an attempt which must lead to a continual progress as soon as it is 
 entered on. Of weight in this respect is the testimony of Jewish 
 grammarians, who refer the whole vowels to three ground-vowels 
 (Q''"TD1?2)' na™ely, to three Arabic vowels a, o, i. In the book 
 Cosri (II. § 80, p. 143, ed. Buxtorf), there appear even the Arabic 
 names for these, namely, nir^IlD (Patach, Fatha), M^p {i-e- 
 compressio, contractio oris, the Arab. Damma, Heb. Cholem), 
 "lUtlJ' C'-^- fi'actio oris, the Arab. Kesre, Heb. Ohirek.) It appears 
 according to this that at that time, not only the gradual rise of 
 the system was known, but also its foreign origin. 
 
 In our MSS., we cannot, however, follow out this gradual 
 progress of punctuation, and the same is true of the Sydac and 
 Arabic. For whilst in some codices there appears a certain incom- 
 pleteness or want of agreement in respect of this,^ the reason of 
 this lies in the overloading of the system with marks, application 
 of which was attended with much difficulty, so that much always 
 depended on the care and sldll of the transcriber. The completed 
 system of our vowels appears rather in all known codices as one 
 already received, and hence we are referred to the 1 1th century as 
 the period when this vowel-notation had reached its present condition. 
 The grammarian Judah Chiug, in the 11th century (see § 37), was 
 already acquainted with the seven vowels now in use ; it is even 
 probable that E. Saadias speaks of them.^ The revisions also of 
 the text, undertaken by Ben Ascher and B. Naphtali, in the 11th 
 century, presuppose the vocahsation as already existing for a longer 
 period, for they are restricted to vowels and accents (see on this 
 more afterwards.) We may, therefore, most safely place the com- 
 pleting of the existing punctuation in the epoch between the 7th 
 and 10th century. 
 
 Obs. closely connected with the punctuation are the other 
 reading marks, the accents, inasmuch as they indicate more 
 exactly the correct pronunciation of a word or a clause, 
 and are consequently to be regarded as only an extension of 
 the vowel- system,^ to be distinguished from the marking 
 
 1 See Buxtorf,!. cit. p. 191. 
 
 2 See Michaelis, Orient. Bibl, IV., s. 219. 
 
 3 Buxtorf, 1. cit. p. 32y. 
 
 * Comp. Ewiild, Ablianill. der orient, uiul bibl. Liter., s, 130, ff. Hebr. Gr. s. 74, ff. 
 :ite Ausg. 
 
2{)0 HISTORY UF THE 
 
 of certain sections of the text, or verses. Already the Talmud 
 makes mention of such modulation in the pronunciation 
 (ilD'^i^i' m^'p)' according to which the Scripture is to he 
 read (Megiliah fol. 32, 1 ), which suggests a regulated, solemn 
 declamation of the sacred text/ though for this it has as 
 little acquaintance with any sign as it has with vowel-signs. 
 In this notation also the Rabbins followed the pattern of the 
 Syrian grammarians ; but they prosecuted the formation of 
 this simple norm much further, and fixed here also, with the 
 most anxious scrupulosity, what had established itself in 
 traditional usage. 
 
 § 55. FURTHER HISTORY OF VOCALISATION. DIVERSE VIEWS 
 OF THIS SUBJECT. 
 
 Since the punctuation was the product of the East, and of the 
 age adduced, we cannot expect to find any definite historical notices 
 (if its origin among the Spanish Rabbins of tlie middle ages, which 
 indeed it was not their custom to give. Among them the vowel- 
 notation had already obtained such authority that they regarded it 
 unhesitatingly as an ancient ecclesiastical ordinance, and hence 
 placed its origin in the favourite source of Rabbinical tradition, the 
 time of Ezra and the great synagogue." The book Cosri (3, § 31, 
 p. 198) nevertheless .asserts the traditional rise of the vowels, and 
 treats the punctuation as a later illustration or confirmation of the 
 text (fc^'^p^n lipn)' ^^^ places it in the same category with the 
 Masoretic labours on the text. Abenezra also forms an exception 
 from the prevailing assumption of his coteraporaries; he is willing 
 to ascribe to Ezra only the division into verses, which, consequently, 
 he declares to be free from any error ;^ but he declares with 
 equal distinctness that the points were the contrivance of the learned 
 men at Tiberias.^ David Kimchi has also been reckoned among 
 
 1 As asnongthe Arabs also there is asimilar solemn recitation of the Corau ( __Jkj ) 
 romp, de Sacy, Notices et Extr. d. MSS. t. IX. No. 3. Comp. also Ewald, Gr. Ar. II. 
 § 777. 
 
 ■^ See the passages in Buxtorf, Tiberias c 11. Buxt., de ant. pnnct. c. 3. 
 
 3 Buxtorf, de ant. pnnct. p. 11, sq. 
 
 ■* "iipjn '5; irVsp n~'o ".inJS, "from them have wr rereivi-d the whole pnni'tiiation," 
 Zachiil. fol. 138, 2. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 267 
 
 the advocales of tlii« opinion, but without justice, for it is sufficiently 
 clear from his writings that he attributed the points to Ezra and 
 the great Synagogue as their originators.^ 
 
 The opinion of Abenesra met with followers, thougb it was 
 regarded as somewhat heretical ; on which account it was the more 
 readily embraced by the Christian scholars of the middle ages, from 
 their dislike to the Jews. Thus Kayraand Martini (f 1278) asserts : 
 Duo Judaei, quorum unus dictus est Naphtali, alter vero Ben 
 Ascher, totum V. T. puuctasse leguntur, quae quidem puncta cum 
 quibusdam virgulis sunt loco vocalium apud eos,^ from which 
 occasion was taken to cbarge the Jews with falsifying the text ; comp. 
 Perez de Valentia, Comment, in Psalm. Prol. tr. II. fol. xxiii., 
 where among other things he says : Ideo nulla fides adhibenda est 
 scripturae s., sicut hodie habent (Judaei) sic interpretatam et 
 punctuatam; Nic. de Lyra ad Hos. c. 9, 12 (who rests on the 
 unpointed synagogue-rolls.) 
 
 The matter, however, was properly brought into discussion first 
 in the beginning of the 16th century by the writing of Elias Levita, 
 entitled Massoreth Hummasoreth, in which he asserts the opinion 
 that the points were first introduced by the Masoretes after the close 
 of the Talmud. Through Miinster's translation of this tractate, 
 this opinion found almost universal admission among the Eeformers 
 and theologians of the 16th century, its opponents (siich as Flacius, 
 Clavis s. s. II., p. 664, sq.) forming only the exception. A formal 
 attack upon it ensued by Buxtorf the elder, in his Tiberias. A 
 complete, and, for the first time, thorough-going treatment of the 
 question was furnished by Lud. Capellus, Professor at Saumur, in 
 his Arcanum Punctuationis Revelatum (published at Leyden 1624, 
 in 4to, through the agency vi' Erpenius without the author's name) ; 
 and by this treatise the object was already rendered dogmatically 
 suspected : Gerhard and Calov declared decidedly against it. In 
 1648 Buxtorf the younger wrote his every way lively reply, De 
 punctorum vocalium et accentuum in libr. V. T. origine, antiquitate 
 et auGtoritate, to which Cappellus wrote a rejoinder entitled 
 Vindiciae arcani puuct. revel. ; and found somewhat later,^ in Job. 
 Morinus (Exercitt. Bibl. t. II.), a most congenial defender. 
 
 ^ Comp. Buxtorf, 1. cit. p. 34, sq. 
 •-' Pugio fidei. P. III., dist. 3, c. 19, p. 895. 
 
 3 [This is not quite exact. Jeau Morin, priest of the Oratory at Paris, was the 
 companion ratlier than the follower of Capell. He fir.st entered upon this controvtrsy in 
 
268 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 In this controversy, with whatever animation conducted, the 
 subject of dispute was nevertheless not viewed on all sides and 
 decided on comprehensive grounds, and hence on both sides much 
 was advanced that is untenable. Still to the careful collections of 
 the Buxtorfs we are indebted for so copious an apparatus of 
 Talmudic and Rabbinical knowledge, that in this respect there 
 remains scope only for a digestive and discriminating criticism. — 
 Especially defective was the positive handling of this matter. The 
 question as to the oldest vowels was thus answered by Capell, that 
 "I'^pj^ had originally stood as such in the text, but were afterwards 
 cast out by the Jews. 
 
 Since, on the assumption of Capell, the text itself was threatened 
 with insecurity, and he himself was guilty of an unheard-of critical 
 arbitrariness, the dogmatical interest of the controversy came to be 
 augmented, and on both sides the reasons for and against of the 
 chiefs of both parties were repeated innumerable times. ^ Among 
 the Swiss theologians respect for the Buxtorfs prevailed to such an 
 extent that, in the formula consensus art. IV., it is laid down that 
 codicem Hebr. V. T. turn quoad consonas tum quoad vocalia sive 
 puncta ipsa sive punctorum saltem potestatem deoirvevarov esse. 
 
 In more recent times a medium course has been proposed, and 
 the opinion of El. Levita and Capell as to the later rise of the 
 vocalisation has been viewed as exaggerated. It has been believed 
 thai the existence of reading signs in the Talmud, and in the age 
 of Jerome, must be conceded ; comp. Dupuy (in the Mem. de I'Acad. 
 t. XXXVI. and in extracts in Eichhorn, Repert. II. s. 270, ff.) 
 0. G. Tychsen, in tlie Repert. III. s. 102, ff. Gesenius, Gesch. 
 d. h. Spr, § ol, 52. But against this Hupfeld has recently on 
 triumphant grounds declared. 
 
 Another kind of solution is also old, that which was adopted by 
 those wh.o did not venture to assert the high antiquity of the present 
 vocalisation in its entire extent. It was admitted that the ancient 
 
 l(j3), wlien be published Lis Exercitatioiics Ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritauorum 
 l^eutateucUam. He proseculed tLe subject in Lis Exercitationes Biblieae de Heb. et 
 Gr. textus sinceritate, tLe first voL of wliicL appeared in 1633, and tie second, with a 
 reprint of the first, iu 1669. Strictly speaking, be wrote after Capell's first publication, 
 and before Lis second.— Tii.] 
 
 1 See tLe principal names, and along with tLem tLe reasons of both parties collected, 
 and (though without any critical valuation) in Spitzner, Vindiciae originis et aucto- 
 ritatis divinae punctorum Vocalium. Lips. 1791, 8vo. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. '4(){i 
 
 Hebrews must have had vowel-signs, but tliese were neither in 
 number nor form the same as those now in use, or only used in 
 dubious and necessary places. Thus e. gr. Rivetus, Isag. ad s. s. 
 cap. 8, § 16 ; Hottinger, Thes. Phil. p. 400, sq. ; Marckius, Syll. 
 Diss, ad text. N. T. diss. 3, § 14 ; Schultens, Institt. Heb. p. 48, 
 sq. More recent enquirers have sought to determine more closely 
 the ancient simple punctuation. Thus some assume, after the model 
 of the Arabic vocalisation, three original vowels, as J. D. Michaelis 
 (vermischte Schriften, Th. 2, s. 1, ff.. Orient. Bibl. IX., s. 82, ff.) 
 Trendelenburg, Report. Th. 18, s. 78, IF. Eichhorn, I. ^ 68. 
 Berthoidt, Einl. I. s. 174. Others, after the analogy of the 
 Samaritan and oldest Syriac writing, fix on a diacritical point for 
 it, as Dupuy, 1. c, Jahn. Einl. I. 340, ff. Comp. also Bauer, 
 Grit. Sac. § 15. Here also, however, there is diversity of opinion 
 as to the age of these signs. Nearest to the truth come those 
 (Steph. and J. Morin, R. Simon) who place the rise of the points 
 in the 7th century, and regard them as an imitation of the Arabic 
 orthography ; comp. Gesenius, Gesch. s. 202. 
 
 § 5G. SEPARATION OF WORDS. 
 
 Closely connected with the square writing is the separating of 
 words. According to rule, as the individual letters were separated, 
 so two words cannot be placed together except at a greater distance. 
 The space to intervene must, according to the Talmud, be here at 
 least so great that a small letter might be inserted in it.^ Already 
 on the old-Aramaic monument, the stone of Carpentras, we find 
 these spaces,^ and so also in the Syriac MSS. of the oldest date.^ 
 To this mode of writing the square writing adhered, and at the 
 same time, in obedience to its own dominant caligraphic principle, 
 it cultivated it with scrupulous exactness, and brought it under 
 regular definitions. 
 
 Thus the text appeared when free from appendages ; the end was 
 attained by a further extension of what bad already been adopted 
 as a rule for the writing of the individual letters. Hence any 
 
 1 Comp. Meiiachoth, foJ. 30, 1 ; Waebner Antiqq. Hebr. I. p. 193. 
 
 2 Comp. Kopp, Bild. u. Scbr. II. § 174. 
 
 3 See .T aim, Einl. I. s. 354, ff. 
 
^70 ^ HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Other separation of words by means of poiuts must remain foreign 
 to the square writing. That some such interpunctuation, however, 
 had preceded is rendered by the analogy of other ancient modes of 
 writing at lenst very probable. For not only is such an interpuno- 
 tuation to be found on the oldest Greek and Roman inscriptions 
 and manuscripts, but from its nature it is probable that this was 
 formed after the model of the Semitic method.i Also the Phoenician 
 inscriptions exhibit such a separation of words by means of points. 2 
 But what isof special importance to our purpose is that the Samaritan 
 writing also has (like theEthiopic),suchan in terpunctuation;^ whence 
 it may with great probability be inferred that a similar interpunc- 
 tuation existed for the ancient Hebrew.* But this troublesome 
 method could hardly survive the introduction of cursive writing ; 
 hence probably already before the completion of the square writing 
 it had fallen into disuse or only irregular use, till at length it was 
 entirely suppressed by the square writing. — With the spaces stand 
 ccmnected the final letters, not that they are to be viewed as 
 themselves intended to separate words, for their rise belongs rather 
 to the cursive character of a writing ; but because a space was left 
 between the words for affording them a more free sweep. 
 
 ^ 57. SEPARATIONS ACCORDING TO THE MEANING. VERSES. 
 
 Our present accentuation describes rnost carefully the tone^^of 
 individual words and entire clauses, and stands in continual and 
 strict connection with the pronunciation of the words ; hence, as 
 respects the time of their rise, the notation of the vowel-sounds, and 
 of the accentuation coalesce. At an earlier period, however, there 
 must have been divisions of the sense for other objects than those 
 which more recently waved before the minds of the Masoretes. 
 
 1 See Kopp. II., s. 143, if. 
 
 2 See Kopp. l.,206, ff. 
 
 3 See Eichhorn, Eiiil. II., s. 588. 
 
 * The non-observance of tbeinterpunctuatiou in the LXX. (Cappelli Grit. Sac. II., p. 
 685, S(.i.), to which appeal has been made in opposition to this (Eichhorn, Einl. I., 249, 
 ff.), proves little, since this, as Gesenius rightly suggests (Gesch. d. Hebr. Spr. s. 172), 
 is the case almost without exception with otherwise closely connected words, on which 
 account the fact specified would only prove the absence of a thorough-going and 
 complete iuterpuuctuatiou. 
 
lEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 271 
 
 Whilst, for example, we find in the oldest translations, such as the 
 LXX., great fluctuation as to the division of periods,' we find 
 already among the Talmudists a very precise arrangement in this 
 respeot, which they held in the highest reverence, as is shown by 
 the maxim: Every verse divided by Moses may not be otherwise 
 divided.^ If we consider the occasion of such divisions, we shall 
 find It was twofold : 1. The reading of the Scriptures, particularly 
 m the public service, led to such. Already the Mishnah mentions 
 the □'iplDQ '"^ relation to this, for it prescribes that the Interpreter 
 ^to^llHTi^) ^'^^'^ ^^^^ ^^'^ ^^^^^ section from the Thorah, three from 
 the Prophets, (to prevent all error), Megillah, c. 4, § 4. The 
 Gemara forbids the leaving of the synagogue before the ending of 
 such a section, introduces the injunction of Ezra (Nehem. viii. 8), 
 and prescribes in reference to the Prophets, how many sections are 
 to be read on the week-days.^ — 2. The study of the Law, the 
 instruction and school teaching of the sameproduced such sense- divi- 
 sions ; these were distinguished from the former, which were merely 
 called Q'^plDC' ^) ^^^^ names t3"^^i?I;i clauses, sententiae (which con- 
 tain a continuous meaning),"^ or also Q"i^^^ "^pIDD clause-sections. 
 To give instruction in the dividing of clauset, (j^^'Di^ti PID'^d) ^^'^^ 
 a special part of the Eabbiuical teaching (Nedarim, fol. 37, 1) ; in 
 Berachoth, f. G2, 1, the teacher is said to point it out to his scholars 
 with the right'band ; and according to it were disputed points of 
 law settled (Cbagigah, f. 0, 2.) 
 
 The relation of this method of division to the Masoretic verses is 
 an approximative one (especially in the Pentateuch), in so far as the 
 latter also takes some account of the meaning ; but it is also 
 different in so far as the former, the Talraudic distinction, holds 
 by the meaning alone and singly. There are nevertheless among 
 the Talmudists differences as to the number of these verse- 
 divisions, explainable by the circumstance that these would be 
 preserved only by tradition.^ The absence from the Synagogue 
 Rolls of all notation of sections proves that it was not by them that 
 
 1 See Caijelli, Crit. Sac. II., 545, sq. 
 '-i Tr. Megillah, fol. 21, 1. 
 
 3 See Beracolh, f. 8, 1 ; Megillah, f. 3, 1 ; Nedarim, f. 37, 2 ; Baba kiima, f. 82, 1. 
 * Comp. e. (jr. Tr. Sotah, p, 818, ed. Wagenseil, wlipre uevertheless the word sttS- is 
 used of a passage read in the synagogue. 
 5 See Wahner, 1. eit. p. 98. 
 
272 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 these were preserved. That an attempt at this must have been 
 made later, and how much such an attempt was resisted by the 
 Talmudists, is shown by the passage Tr. Sopherim c. 3 : hber legis 
 in quo incisum est (^pODtl?) ^^ ^^ ^^^ capita incisorum punctata 
 sunt (QipIDD ''"l^t'^l Ip'liU;')' "6 legas in eo. Hence all stops, 
 as well as proper written marks for such divisions, must be viewed 
 as remote from the time of the Talmudists, who nowhere make the 
 least reference to them, on the contrary always treat of this as a 
 part of the oral instruction. The principal means of assisting the 
 memory in this mode of reading were the Q^i^^'^D memoranda, 
 words with which the traditional determination was associated, and 
 which consequently were reckoned necessary to the true preservation 
 of the Law (Erubin, f. 53.^) 
 
 In this state Jerome found the Hebrew text. Nowhere does he 
 mention proper marks for the divisions of the meaning, for such 
 passages as " inter Hebraicumet LXX. diversa distinctio est," (ep. 
 ad Cyprian, ad Ps. xc. 11, and others^), prove nothing in reference 
 to this since Jerome followed here the context and Eabinnical 
 tradition. He rather looked upon himself as the person who first 
 undertook by means of a proper interpunctuation to make clear 
 the meaning of his translation (utilitati legentium providentes 
 interpretationem novam novo scribendi yenere distinximus. Praef. 
 in Jes.) Hence Jerome imitated the custom of the grammarians; in 
 place of making a break in the writing by a proper interpunctuation, 
 each clause which contained a complete sense, and often the smaller 
 parts of each were written separately, and each began a new line 
 (o-Tt;)^epco?.)'' (Quod in Demosthene et in Tullio fieri solet ut per 
 cola scribantur et commata, qui utique prosa et non versibus 
 scripserunt. Ibid?) He thus wrote stichometrically the prophetic 
 and poetic books (nemo cum Prophetas versibus viderit esse 
 descriptos. Ibid), and that for the sake of greater distinctness 
 
 (quoniam manifestiorem legentibus sensum 
 
 tribuit. Praef. in Ezech.), distinguishing the greater periods 
 
 1 We are not to class amoug tbese tlie ]'^s;''".y, (^or tbese are simply lines, and Jabn (I. 
 362) erroneously concludes from the Targ. ou Cant. v. 13, that they were divisions 
 comprehending a full sense; for that passage is to be taken simply in reference to the 
 allegory (the ten beds of a Garden), and has no antiquarian value. Comp. Buxtorf, 
 Tiber, p 287, Lex. Cbald. Talm. p. 23T8. 
 
 2 Which are quoted by O. G. Tychsen, Repertor. 3, 140. 
 
 3 Comp. Hug, Einl. ins N. T. I. § 44, 45. 
 
 * See on tliis passage Clericus, Ars Crit. TI. 133 sq. 
 
TKXT OF THK OLD Tf:STAMENT. 278 
 
 (cola, membra) and the lesser (commata, incisa) according to 
 the usage which the ancient rhetoric had already estahlished/ 
 and to which the rhetorical character of the prophetic discourses 
 was especially congenial ; whereas in regard to the historical he 
 only speaks of the larger sections (distinctiones/?e'r membra divisas. 
 Praef. in Jos.; cola. Praef. in Paralip.) In the poetical hooks 
 Jerome preferred nevertheless the writing according to Hemis- 
 tychs as the passage from the Praef. in Jes. itself appears to indicate, 
 and such as ancient codices present.^ To him belongs only the 
 further extension of this usage (for even in the LXX. and the 
 Itala were the poetic books written stichometrically ;^) after him it 
 came into ever more general reception.* 
 
 § .58. OTHER LARGER DIVISIONS. 
 
 In describing the larger sections of the Old Testament we may 
 distinguish two classes according to the end for which they were 
 assumed : 
 
 1. Ecclesiastical Divisions of the Si/nagof/ue. The very 
 ancient custom of reading every Sabbath in the Synagogue a 
 portion of the Law (Acts xiii. 21 : Mft)ucrr)9 e« '^/eveoiv ap^alwv Kara 
 TToKiv Tou? K'r)pva(TOVTa<i avTov e)(€i, ev TaU avvajcojal'i Kara irav 
 ad^/Barov dvwyivcocrKOfievo'i ; comp. Joseph, c. Apion. 1. II. p. 
 1072, ed. Colon.), had as a consequence that for the more regular 
 observance of it the Pentateuch was divided into 54 sections 
 (nVtlJ^Q)- ^^ these there is mention in the Gemara, where a 
 distinction is made between the ope?i, i.e. such as began a new line 
 
 1 See Cicero, Orator c. 62 and 66. Brutus c. 44. Comp. also the use of vcrsMs (rhetorical 
 clauses), Cic.de oral. I, 61. 
 
 2 Comp. R. Simon, H. crit. V. T. I., 28. Kenuikott, Diss. I. sup. ratioue Textus 
 Helir. p. 308. Stark, prolegg. in Pss. t. II. p 443; quo antiquiores sunt codd. Hebraei 
 eo magis per versus scribendi rationem in poeticis libris reguare. 
 
 3 See the passage in De Wette, Einl. s. 118. 
 
 * Comp. Cassiodor. praef. in div. leott. : Quod nos quoque tanti viri auctoritate 
 commoti seqnendum esse judicavimus (namely, the distinctio per cola et commata), ut 
 cetera distinctionibus ordinentur. — Reliquos vero codices qui non sunt tali distinctione 
 signati, notariis, diligenti tamen cura sollicitis, relegendos atque emendandos reliqui. 
 Comp. Clericus 1. cit. p. 191. — On the assertion of a Masoretic division of verses by 
 numbers, which, according to De Rossi, was found first in the Sabionite Pentateuch (of 
 the year 1557), see Kiehborn I. 266. 
 
 S 
 
274 HISTORY OF THF, 
 
 (mniDO) ^^^ ^^^^ shut, or such as were written on in tlie same line 
 (n')?2^^D) > thongh tlie Talmud ists are not at one as to the nota- 
 tion of these by spaces.^ More recent is the distinction between the 
 greater Parashes, which were read on the Sabbath, and the lesser, 
 which were appointed for the week-days, or rather perhaps a new 
 subdivision of the greater Parashes for the sake of more distinctly 
 marking the inter-spaces for the reading.^ According to Maimonides 
 it was the received usage among the Jews to complete in this way the 
 reading of the Law in the space of one year, beginning with the Sabbath 
 following the Feast of Tabernacles ; he admits, however, that there 
 were synagogues in which three years were assigned to this.^ — The 
 mode of denoting the Parashes in printed editions is for the larger 
 ones as they are open or shut Q Q Q, and ODD' ^^^ ^^^ smaller q 
 and C). 
 
 After the reading of the Law in the Synagogue it was also from 
 an early period the custom to jead a passage from the Prophets 
 (comp Acts xiii. 15, 27; Luke iv. IG, IF.), and with that to 
 dissolve the meeting (Xveiv rrjv auvaycoyrjv, Acts xiii. 43, hebr. 
 ■^^ISOn) > lience the reader who made this conclusion was called 
 T^IDDQ'^ and the prophetic passage read nH^QH- FroQ^ Luke iv. 17 
 it undoubtedly appears, as also passages from the Talmudists show,^ 
 that at the time of Christ there was a free choice left as to the 
 passage to be read, nor do the TrepiKOTral'^ or Jewish reading-sections 
 of which the Church Fathers, as Justin Martyr, make mention in 
 quoting passages from the Prophets, prove that any stringent 
 arrangement in this respect prevailed. The origin of a regular 
 selection of prophetic passages or Haphtares^ is indeed, by the 
 modern Jews, referred to very ancient times,® but on very uncritical 
 grounds ; " when it was determined by law no one knows."^ Even 
 now there are differences as to selection of these among the Jews 
 of different countries. 
 
 1 Sclmbbath f. 103, 2. Wahner I. cit p. 18S. 
 
 '■^ Cai'pzov, crit. sac p. 145. Otherwise Jaliu, s. 364. 
 
 3 In his book ms^n iibsri cap. 13, comp. also Ideler, Handb. d. Cbronol. I., 564. 
 
 * See Lightfoot, Hor. ad Luc. iv. 16. 
 
 5 See Lightfoot, 1. c. 
 
 6 Equivalent to di/ayvco(T/j.ara, comp. Hug, 1. 0, § 48. 
 
 7 See the list in Bodenschatz, Kirchl. Verfassiing der Juden II. 26, ff, 
 
 8 See Carpzov, 1. cit. p. 148. Hottinger, Tlies. p, 222. 
 
 « Eiclihorn, I. 270, Comp. also Zunz, Die gotteadieustlicheu Vorlrage der Jndeii. s. 
 3, fr. and 188, ff. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 275 
 
 2. Divisions for private use. The oldest of thesv,- vvbich we 
 know is the casual mention of the contents of a section by which a 
 passage is more closely denoted, hence called by Bertholdt an ideal 
 division of the matter. Such are found as early as Philo (de Agricult. 
 I. 310, ed. Mangey : A,e7et 7a/3 eV rai? apal<i, i.e. Deut. xxvii.) in 
 the N. T. (Mark ii. 2G ; Rom. xi. 2 ; Mark xii. 26 ; Heb. iii. 8 ; 
 iv. 4), and also with the later Rabbins.^ They have their analogies 
 in the classics^ and among the orientals (as e.ffr. the appellations 
 of the Suras of the Coran.) 
 
 In Hebrew MSS. (as well as in the LXX.) Jerome found a 
 division into capitula, and he remarks upon the irregularity of these. ^ 
 Whether it was the same which Jacob Ben Chajim found in a 
 Hebrew MS. (the Q^'^Id) °'' "^ ^^ mentioned in the correctorium 
 Parisiense* of the 12th cent, must remain uncertain. 
 
 Shortly after that time (the 1 3th cent.) the Scholastics began 
 to prefer our present capitular division, to which occasion was 
 given by the concordances then coming into use.^ From the 
 Christians this passed over to the Jews, of whom R. Isaac Nathaii 
 (about A.D. 1440) was the first who availed himself of them. 
 
 § 59. HISTORY OF THE TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A WHOLE. 
 FIRST PERIOD TO THE CLOSING OF THE CANON. 
 
 "The Hebrew text," remarks De Wette, § 85, "has probably 
 suffered misfortunes before the Old Testament collection was formed 
 into a whole, and attained a certain reverence." In this assertion 
 true and false are so strangely intermingled that it is not easy to 
 extricate the former out of it. It is based on the assumption that 
 the carelessness or arbitrariness with which people proceeded before 
 the closing of the Canon, had its origin in a want of reverence for 
 it as a collection of sacred writings. For this error, however, there 
 is as little historical as dogmatical foundation. For what has been 
 
 1 See Dopke, Hermeneiitik d. N.T. Schriftell. s. 63, ff. 
 
 '^ Comp. e. ^r. Tliucyd. 1.9, in the citing of Homer; see Wolf, prolepg. ad Homer. 
 
 p. cvin. 
 
 3 E. gr. in Mich. vi. 9, in Hebraicis alterius hoc capituli exordium est, aqud LXX. 
 vero finis superioris. See other passages in De Wette, s. 119. 
 * As Jahn suggests, s. 369. 
 5 See Buddeus, Isagoge Histor. Theol. &c. p. 1513, sq. — More miuutely in .Jahn, s. 358. 
 
 s 2 
 
270 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 adcluced as a voucher for some sucb arbitrary procedure, viz. tlie 
 parallel passages found in the Old Testament itself [which often 
 vary more or less from each other], proves assuredly the great 
 freedom possessed, and that consciously, so long as a living 
 Divine principle showed itself operative in the Theocracy. We 
 have here, be it observed, not to do with citations, but with a free use 
 of the text, and we cannot regard the former as proper variations 
 of the text, as it is only with the independent original that we have 
 to do. — It has already been frequently observed how the repetitions 
 occurring in the Old Testament indicate a certain liberty of 
 quotation, which proves directly the original character of these and 
 their non-interpolation.^ " Si quando vel duo scriptores ex uno 
 communi fonte hauriebaut, vel alter alterum exscribebat vel denique 
 idem auctor scriptum iterum edebat, non iisdem semper verbis 
 utebantur, sed cum pleraque retinerent, uonnulla subinde addebant, 
 alia demebant, aha cum aliis commutabant."^ Through the criticism 
 of Capell and others, however, the principle has come to prevail 
 that in such cases one of the two readings is the critically correct, 
 i.e. the origin*il one, the other spurious and critically to be 
 repudiated.^ The principle confounds the exegetical with the 
 critical, for certainly in a linguistic and exegetical respect such a 
 difference may lead, and ought to lead, to a determination of the 
 earlier or later or contemporary origin of these sections ; but for 
 criticism both readings are alike primitive, and it has in both cases 
 to do only with the original. 
 
 It thus appears that the condition of the text antecedent to the 
 closing of the Canon hes beyond the reach of criticism, as belonging 
 to a period with which it has nothing to do. For it must not be 
 overlooked that, on the one hand, at that time the text itself and 
 the revision of it were regarded as belonging to the Theocracy, and 
 the men called thereto, as a free property ; and on the other that in 
 this and in other favourable circumstances (such as the existence of 
 the Hebrew as a living mother tongue^) lay the safety of the sacred 
 text, which could receive anything foreign only after the Canon had 
 been led to possess a self-repairing power. 
 
 If we look, however, to the time of the collecting of the Canon, 
 
 1 Comp. Micbaelis, Neue Orient. Bibl. III. s. 236, ff. 
 
 •.; Pareau, Institt. luterp. p. 313 [Biblical Cabinet, No. 25, p. 29.] 
 
 ° See ou the other side Buxtorf, Anticrit. p. 363, sqq. 
 
 * See Jahu, Kinleit. I. 377. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 277 
 
 we shall have a direct testimony iu favour of the conscientiousness 
 of the author of it in regard to the text of the sacred writings in the 
 preservation of the minutest differences in the parallel passages. A 
 later arbitrary criticism would have tried to produce uniformity in 
 respect to these; but, as it is, the divergence proves the care with 
 which they went to work at that time, and, far from ascribing this 
 divergence to copiers of a later period, we must impute to the latter 
 the rise of a comparison of these passages. 
 
 Possible, however, as corruptions of the ancient text might be,^ 
 we have no means of detecting them so as to separate them from 
 those which have arisen since the collection of the Canon ; to this 
 as for us in a critical respect an important period, we must look, in 
 order to ascertain through what hands the canonical text has passed, 
 and what they have made of it. 
 
 § GO. SECOXD PERIOD. HISTORY OF THE TEXT TILL THE AGE OF 
 THE TALMUDISTS. 
 
 In this period there are two principal divergences of the canonical 
 text to which we must attend, which may be called from their 
 authors the Alexandrino-Egyptian and the Palestinian Recensions. 
 
 The oldest monument of the former we possess is the Aleorandrian 
 Translation. It exhibits without critical exactness the text of the 
 Old Testament in a state very greatly varying from its present, 
 since in the preparation of it the original text was not with 
 scrupulous fidelity followed, but received partly from want of skill, 
 partly from intentional efforts at emendation, a varied hue, even 
 according to the different parties engaged upon the translation. 
 Besides in its production there may have been used corrupted 
 codices to which the rise of these variations may be referable. But 
 the love of novelty among the Alexandrians must be regarded as 
 lying at the root of these divergencies, which cannot be charged 
 upon the stationary character of the Judaism of Palestine; and 
 hence the blame of such variations as arose from unskilfulness 
 must be laid upon the Greek translator, not upon the copyist, 
 
 1 That at the time of the composition of Cbronicles there were codices wbioli liad 
 hecome incorrect or corrupt, is probable from the genealogies in them. See Keil, Apol. 
 Vers. ub.d. Chronik. s. 18o, s. 293, flf. 
 
278 . HISTORY OF THE 
 
 always better skilled in the Hebrew. Hence this new text must be 
 viewed as one constructed on foreign ground, and therefore of 
 significancy in a critical point of view, only when it concurs with 
 those which stand closely allied to the original by an internal bond. 
 — Proceeding from this text, and in so far of special historical 
 interest, is a proper Hebrew recension of the text of the Mosaic 
 books, which, reaching the Samaritans from the Alexandrians, has 
 from the former come to us. The Samaritan Pentateuch^ is such 
 a free recension of the text, for the most part following the uncritical 
 text of the Alexandrians, more rarely assuming variations required 
 by the usage of the Samaritan language or Samaritan religious 
 ideas (corap. Deut. xxvii. 4.) As yet no variation proving itself 
 genuine, has been instanced from this recension ;^ all fall under the 
 heads of grammatical corrections, glosses, additions from parallel 
 passages, ^&c. 
 
 Among the Jews of Palestine we find greater carefulness as 
 respects the preservation of the text. Of this the calligraphic 
 writing of the sacred books, introduced before the time of Christy 
 is an evidence. Josephus also expressly ascribes to his nation the 
 greatest carefulness in the preservation of these books {ire^vkaKevaL 
 fxera TToXkr]<i aKpi^eta<i), and adds : ovre irpoadelvai ti? ovSev, ovre 
 a(peX.eiv avToov, ovre fieraOelvai TeToX^rfKev (c. Apion. I., § 8.) 
 There is moreover in those sources whence we derive from that 
 time more or less direct information regarding the Palestinian text, 
 a remarkable agreement with, and close adherence to, the Hebrew 
 original. So Aquila's Translation ; and the Targum of Onkelos and 
 Jonathan. So much the more foolish is the charge which has been 
 made against the Jews of intentional corruption of the text^ — a 
 charge proceeding only from polemic bitterness and bigotry. An 
 evidence of such a text, so exact and agreeing with the Hebrew, is 
 furnished by the Hebrew columns in Origen's Hexapla, which are 
 also to be referred to a Palestinian origin. After this standard 
 Jerome corrected his translation (curae nobis fuit omnes vet. legis 
 libios, quos vir Adamantius in Hexapla digessenit, de Caesariensi 
 
 1 Principal work: Gesenius, De Pentateuchi Samaritani origiue, &c. Halae ISl-l, 
 eoinp Tholuck's Lit. Anz. 1833, No. 38-40. 
 
 2 Tlie few passages^coUected with this view by Geseuius, p. 61, form uo exception to 
 this remark when more closely examined, so that the older opinion, that of Hottinger, 
 fSteph. Morinus, Biixtorf, &c , holds true. 
 
 3 See Eichhorn, Eiti!. I., § 111. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 279 
 
 bibliotlieca descriptos, ex ipsis authenticis, emeodare etc. Ciimm. 
 ad Tit. c. iii.), and his sureness about the Hebrew text, in which 
 he never takes notice of any variety of reading (which, bowever^ 
 he so much tbe more freely does in reference to the LXX.), is 
 explainable also only from this liis confident reversion to the Jewish 
 text.^ 
 
 § 01. TREATMENT OF THE TEXT AMONG THE TALMUDISTS. 
 
 From the preceding it appears how, with the orthodox Jews of 
 Palestine and Babylon, a textus receptus of tbe Old Testament must 
 have been found about the time of Christ. Already the contrariety 
 to which the free bellenistic mode of treating it tended must have 
 evoked in its opponents a decided adherence to the received text. 
 Already the graphic prescriptions of tbe Talmud prove tbe great care 
 which was exercised on tbe text ; but as it was held as a fixed law to 
 write according to tbe rule, i.e. according to tbe norm determined 
 by usage (Qii;27nD D^llTlD ^r. Gittin f. 45, 2), the text came to 
 be constituted unimpeachable, and hence not to be toucbed by 
 critical (and we may add exegetical) meddling in any of its rights, 
 or in any way corrupted by additions or alterations. Whatever of 
 this sort, therefore, affected the text and its constitution (as inter- 
 pretation) could only be regarded as Tradition, which went along 
 with the written law.' 
 
 In this way the Textual Criticism of tbe Talmud came to possess 
 an altogether peculiar character. First of all, whatever could contri- 
 bute to the still exacter determination of the received text was 
 attended to. Thus they numbered tbe words and the letters of the 
 text,^ in connection with this made declaration of the defective or 
 full writing of the words, what word and what letter is the middle 
 one of each book, how often the same word occurs in tbe same 
 book or section, ko.^ The Talmud gives out this attention 
 
 1 Comp. Eicliliorn, § 113, 123, 127, 6. 
 
 2 It ia entirely from ignorance of tliis principle that the doubt has arisen in the minds 
 of some as to the admission of a textus receptus hj- the Talmndists, as e. gr. Bertholdt 
 I 270. 
 
 3 !See on the allied usage of the Syrian, Wiseman, Hor. Syr. p. 213, and other peoples 
 of the East, F.wald, Abliandll. z. Orient, ii. Bibl. Litt. I. 57. 
 
 4 See the Taimudie passages ap. Wahner, Antiqq. Hebv. I. 99, sqq. 
 
280 HISTORY OK THE 
 
 especially to the numbering of the words as very ancient ; the ancient 
 learned men, it says, were exercised in the determination of defective 
 and full written words, not less than we are ;^ hence the ancients 
 were called Di")Q1D. according to the Talmud, on account of this 
 
 attention (n-nniUT nvm^^ h^ D^D^D vntr-) 
 
 All changes, however, assumed upon the text on critical or 
 hermeneutical grounds, belonged to the department of traditional 
 deliverance, which was viewed as a fixed and aboriginal accom- 
 paniment of the text (*ii*iD!2 1112^^7 n^TTT' Nedarim f 37, 2.)^ 
 In this way was formed the contrast between the Ketih, the written, 
 the primitive text, and its reading ; and the Keri, the read, the 
 closer fixing of the former to be taken with it, or a variation upon 
 it ; comp. e.g. Tr. Joma f. 21, 2, " why is it written (^'^jnDI '^i^T^) 
 Hagg. i. 8, -n2i^"), and why read we (li^-^p")) ; mn^^T ?" The 
 Talmud avails itself of both the text and the marginal reading for 
 its purposes, i.e. the founding of its juridical and theological 
 decisions.^ There is thus nowhere an explanation of the (critical) 
 origin of these readings, which in this respect bad no interest for 
 the Talraudists, who concerned themselves solely and exclusively 
 about their application. The sources of these, however, are two, 
 1 . A critical one arising from a collation of MSS., as appears from 
 the passage, Taanith Hieros. fol. 08, 1,* according to which» 
 however, this sort of occupation belongs to a more distant period' 
 and has on the whole an inferior significancy ; 2. By far the greater 
 part of these variations rest on hermeiientical grounds, whether 
 some exegetical correction, such as changing the anomalous for 
 the regular, &c., or some reading specially belonged to Talmudic 
 hermeneutics, and based on them. Such hermeneutical rules are 
 e.c/r. that laid down, Megillah f 25, 2, 'J'^2'ijn!3n mt^lpJ^n 72 
 nnU^^ jnit^ pp "^«:A mini (omnes voces quae scriptae 
 sunt in lege in turpitudinem, leguntur in laudem), and hence the 
 
 1 Kidduschin fol. 30. See Buxtorf, Tiber, c. 8. 
 
 2 How stroDgly all uncalled for emendations of the text were opposed and protested 
 against, is shown by tbe examples in Jost, Gescli. d. Israel. IV., s. 36. 
 
 3 Tbe citations from the Talmud are hence commonly according to tl.e Keri. See 
 Frommann, Opuscc. Philol. (Coburg. 1770 ) I., 21 sq. 
 
 4 Comp. the passage in De Wette, s. 132, not. b.,and with it the remark of Kimchi ap 
 Walton, Prolegg. p. 2-i] : viri synagogae M. — inveuerunt difierentias in libris et secuti 
 sunt multitudinem. In locis vero quorum claram cognitionem assecuti non sunt unum 
 scripserunt in textu el non punctatum, aut ad marginem et textui non iuseruerunt. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 281 
 
 euphemistic margiual reading; so likewise on the pronunciation of 
 the name Jehovah as Adonai or Elohim (see Pesachim f. 50, 1 ; 
 Kidduschin f. 71, 1.) 
 
 The Talmud moreover recognises particular classes of such 
 textual variations which belong to the Q*i"^r)1D h^lp?2- ^^ mentions 
 expressly the Keri velo Keiib and the Ketib velo Keri (Nedarim 
 J. cit), according to the augumentation or diminution as respects 
 the text in the marginal reading, though the text itself did not 
 always bear mention of these variations (as in later pointed MSS., 
 by means of a slight space, &c.) The opposite of such ^'^ID k^'^tPt^ 
 is the 0"i-^Q"iD Titoy (comp. Nedarim 1. cit.), or the ablatio 
 scribarum, which relates to such Keris as have been inserted 
 erroneously, such as the copula •) before "»inh^) ^^^ hence denotes 
 words not to be read.^ With this at a later period was classed 
 the (not mentioned in the Talmud) D^-^riiD llp"^]!' correctio 
 scribarum, an exegetical diversion," intended to show ihe possihility 
 of another reading than that of the original text {e. yr. DilV"^^ for 
 ■ij-^^"^^, Num. xi. 15), but at the same time intimating that from 
 definite and weighty reasons the writer had expressed himself as the 
 text has it.^ 
 
 Only in two cases have exceptions to this general rule of the 
 inviolability of the sacred text been admitted, which therefore 
 require a closer examinination : 1. The puncta extraordinaria, 
 partly over single letters (as e. gr. 'rVCSSD'^.-' ^^en. xix. 3^), partly 
 over entire words (as '^pp^yS-^, Gen. xxxiii.4 ; ^^'^■^, l-*s. xxvii. 18.) 
 In the Talmud, however, these points appear nowhere as o{ critical 
 import, but alone as indicating objects of allegorical explanations 
 and plays.* As such they were recognised even by Jerome (Quaest. 
 in Gen. xviii. 35, [xix. 33]) : appungunt desuper quasi incredibile 
 et quod rerum natura non capiat, coire quempiam nescientem. 
 
 1 Comp. Biixtorf, Tiber, p. 41, sq. Wahner 1. cit. p. 109, sq. : noli verborum sono 
 seduci, ne castratum per eos textiim suspiceris. Nihil illi est demptum. Sed monueruiit 
 lantummodo quinque iu locis, ubi prefixum i, licet in sacro codice expressum uou esset, 
 vulgo tameu legeretur, id legi uon debere. Ex vitiosa igitur lectione non ex sacro 
 codice, criticorum aliquid abstulit extrusio. — Quite erroneously, on tlie other hand, has 
 the expression been regarded by recent writers, as e.(jr. Bertholdt, s. 270; Eichhorn,!. 
 147. 
 
 ■^ Already Abeu Ezra, on-Num. xi. 15, remarks on the superfluousuess of this. 
 
 3 Comp. Wahner 1. cit., p. 110. Stange Theol. Symmikta II., s li}3, ff. 
 
 * Comp. Nasir, f. 23, I. Sanhedrin, f. 43. Rerachoth, f. 4. 
 2 
 
282 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Hence also the hermeneutical rule : If the majority of the letters be 
 provided with points, these are to be treated allegorisingly, but, if 
 the minority, then the non- pointed letters are to be so treated.^ 
 From this it is clear that the Talmud already regarded these points 
 as ancient, and as a property belonging to the text (like the 
 coronaments, &c.), and it is only their original or pretalmudic 
 determination that can be subject of question. This appears, 
 however, partly on account of the want of many of these words in 
 the oldest translations (LXX. Samar. Syr.),^ partly on account of 
 the analogous significance of such points in other MS. docu- 
 ments,^ to have been really the result of critical efforts (for 
 indicating the omission of a word or letter in the one or other MS. 
 so as to render blotting out or erasure unnecessary), but afterwards 
 incorporated with the text ; and their origin being unknown, they 
 were the more readily used for allegorical purposes.^ — 2. Analogous 
 was the determination of the Uterae majusculae, minusculae and 
 inversae, of which the Talmud takes notice as an ancient usage 
 (Kidduschin, f. 30, I ), but of which the Talmud itself has indicated 
 the proper and original use.^ Those obtained at a later period on 
 account of their antiquity a canonical establishment (see Massechet 
 Sophrim.c. 9), and besides supplied abundant material for knitting 
 together the allegorical explanations and caprices of the Talmudists, 
 and in a still higher degree of the later Cabbalistic Jews.^ 
 
 § 62. THE MASORETES AND THEIR LABOURS. 
 
 A new period for the formation of the Old Testament text 
 commenced with the rise and operations of the Masoretes. Up to 
 this the tradition had been exclusively oral, and it was a decided 
 
 1 Comp. Tosepboth ad Baba mezia.f. 87, 1. 
 
 ■2 Comp. Hiipeden, von der wahren Ursache und Bedeutung der ausserordentliolie 
 PuDkte. Hannover, 1751, particularly § 4, ff'. 
 
 3 Comp Blancliini Evangeliarium Quadrupl. II. 2, p. 502. 
 
 ♦ From this, however, nothing is less allowable than the rejection of such words from 
 the text; see Hitzig, Die Psalm, iibers, u. s. w., s. 44 
 
 ^ Namely, as marking the middle of a book or section, &c. See Kidduschin, 1. c. 
 Wahuer, 1. c. p. 104, sq. Hence they can be viewed only as critical signs were originally 
 Sf>e Gesenius, Lehrg. s. 11. 
 
 6 Comp. Sanhedrin, f. 103, 2. Baba Bathra, f. 109,2. See also Dbpke, Hermeneutik 
 der N.T. Schriftstellprn, s. 178. 
 
 2 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 283 
 
 principle of the Talmudists tliat what belonged to the oral traditions 
 was not to be taught in writing.^ 
 
 But through the many minute definitions of the Talmudists, 
 tradition respecting the biblical text had grown to such an extent 
 that it must have appeared to themselves doubtful if their principle 
 of not committing that tradition to writing could be rigidly carried 
 out. To this was added the circumstance, that from the 6th 
 century, the schools in Palestine, especially that at Tiberias, began 
 again to flourish, and their relation to the Persian Jews especially 
 was directed to the calling forth of a new branch of scientific effort, 
 since the Talmud was already committed to writing.^ There came 
 at a later period the union of these schools with the Arabians and 
 Syrians, which called forth a certain graramatico-critical revision of 
 the text. In such an effort the only course was along the path of 
 tradition, and hence the service of these scholars consisted not in 
 independent grammatical researches (such as at a later period were 
 developed on the basis of that previous work), but in the collecting 
 and arranging of the traditions in respect of the text. Hence it 
 appears how these scholars had always an inferior influence, and 
 obtained but little reputation, particularly in relation to the Baby- 
 lonian Eabbins who were then zealously devoted to Talmudic 
 studies.^ 
 
 What we find accordingly in the Talmud as an object of oral 
 tradition and learned treatment was noted down, and called the 
 Masorah, in the sense of written tradition. The Masoretes did 
 not, as has been commonly imputed to them, attempt a new revision 
 of the text, still less a setthng of the same according to the 
 consonants, as Eichhorn thinks (Einl. I. ^ 129), which in much 
 earlier times had been accomplished as a standard available for all 
 times. They rather devoted themselves exclusively, in the first 
 instance, to the noting what had been handed down, and hence to 
 the exactest possible representation of the number of verses, words, 
 and letters of the Keri and Ketib, &c. On this account the 
 Masorah appears, on the one hand, among the Jewish writers as a 
 very ancient element, and, on the other, with equal truth as a 
 
 1 See Gittiii, f. 60. Morinus, de Ling. Primaeva, p. 428. 
 
 2 Comp. .Jost, Gesch. d. Israeliten, V. 214, flf., s. 282, and particularly Ziinz, Die 
 Gottesdieustl. Vortrage der Juden, s. 309. 
 
 ■^ Comp. Morinus, L cit., p. 436. 
 
284 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 production of the post-talmudic period.^ Hence also the difference 
 among the Rabbins ; some, and tliey the major part, declaring them- 
 selves for the Masorah, and others, on the contrar}', lamenting the 
 cessation of the living tradition, and its having passed into a dead 
 property.^ 
 
 It lies in the nature of the thing itself, that even in such efforts an 
 advance should be made, which found scope especially in the closely 
 associated ffra?nmalical studies, or rather (empirical) observations 
 on the text.^ The aim of the Masoretes was thus to produce a gram- 
 matical conformity of the sacred text, and to bring into consequent 
 application the grammatical principles formed in this respect.* In 
 this way the marginal readings were formed with greater consecutive- 
 ness, as grammatical glosses, by which the text was conceived not as 
 something to be apprehended as a living development, but as a whole 
 to be handled with constant uniformity. Exactly as the Homeric 
 critics emended their text according to grammatical rules with 
 more or less of arbitrariness,^ so also the Masoretes, only with the 
 great difference that the written text, as handed down, remained 
 with them as such untouched. With the Masoretes, consequently, 
 the ancient text flowed on freely beside the newly settled text, so 
 that here the original condition of the text was clearly discriminated 
 from that which accompanied it, and which was furnished by 
 tradition and the grammatical system of the Masoretes. As the 
 acme and proper consummation to which this undertaking was 
 directed, we may regard the vocalisation and accentuation of the 
 text, in which not even the minutest detail has escaped the sedulous 
 care of the Masoretes. 
 
 From this we may ascertain the (often erroneously assigned) 
 sources of the Masorah, inasmuch as, on the one hand, it concurs 
 with the preceding tradition, whilst, on the other, it sets forth 
 certain principles of its own, suggested by the notation of the 
 former. To this grammatical constituting of the text is to be 
 
 1 Comp. Buxtortf, Tiberias, c. 3. Hence the one-sided strife among theologians as to 
 tlie age of the Masorah; see De Wette, § 90, note 6. 
 
 ■-'Comp. the B. Cosri P. 3, p. 197, Buxt. ; Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 203. Other later 
 declarations rest entirely on bad MSS. of the Masora. See O. G. Tyscheu, von 
 Hartmann I. 390. 
 
 3 See the examples in Buxtorf, Tiber, p. 141, sqq. 
 
 * Comp. Geseniiis, Gesch. de Hebr. Spr. s. 75. 
 
 •'' See Wolf, Proll. ad Homerura, p. ccvi. sq. 
 
TEXT 01'' THE OLD TRSTAMKNT, 286 
 
 referred, consequently, all that has been set forth as resting on 
 " the collation of MSS.," and "the private judgment" of the 
 Masoretes.^ The idea of the "criticism of the Masoretes" (or 
 " critical Keris," &c.) must therefore be formed entirely with respect 
 to these principles as one thoroughly peculiar and definite. All 
 set forth by them, as well as the newly invented signs, have such a 
 grammatical character, and the same definiteness.'^ Thus also the 
 r'^''!lD ^^^ not in the least " critical conjectures," proposals towards 
 alterations of the text,^ but purely grammatical emendations, which, 
 however, were by the Masoretes themselves disapproved of as 
 readings, since they would not substitute them for the anomalous 
 or unusual expression of the text.^ 
 
 The object of the labour of the Masoretes was in truth endless, 
 inasmuch as ever exacter and more detailed determinations of the 
 text would be thought of ; hence the want of completeness which 
 often shows itself in the notation, and the difference, in respect of the 
 documents in which it is contained,^ and the Masoretic recensions 
 thence arising (see the following §.) 
 
 There is a distinction made between the Great and the Little 
 Mamrah, according to the greater or less completeness of the 
 remarks.*^ The Masorah was first collected in books by itself; 
 afterwards it was appended to the margin of the Bible MSS.,^ and 
 it was first printed in the Bomberg edition of the Bible in 151ft, 
 under the supervision of Felix Pratensis, more correctly afterwards 
 in the edition of 1520, under the supervision of the Jew Jacob Ben 
 
 1 Comp. De W^ette, § 91. See, on the other hand, tlie excellent remarks of Ephodaeus 
 (Buxtorf de Punct. autiq. p. 411) : et tunc composuerunt libros Masorethicos.qui oranes 
 agunt de grammaticalibus Hbri hujus sancti (mn ^Eon '^,^~'^-^-^ n~ n'ss) ete. 
 
 '^ So the Piska. Comp. Gesenius, Lehrg. s, 124, ff., and especially Maurer, Comment, 
 z B. Josua, s 31, flf. 
 
 3 Thus Bertholdt, s 276. 
 
 4 Consequently analogous to the Tikkun Sophrira. Comp. Buxtorf, Tiberias, p. 
 145. sq. 
 
 ^ Elias Levita ap Buxtorf, Tib. p. 194: scito quod Masorah magna, quae exstat, 
 proiiemodum infinita est. Comp. also Ewald, Grammatik, s. 61, 2te Ausg. and Buxt. 
 p. 196. 
 
 6 Masorah magnaest, quae totamCriticeucompreliendit, cum plena locorum Scripturae 
 enumeratione, quam quaeque nota critica suo numero designat. — Mas. parva est, quae 
 Uteris numeralibus, vocibus deourfatis et symbolicis ad latus texius breviter et succincte 
 describitur. Buxt. Tib. p. 199, 202. 
 
 7 See Bux.^Tib. p. 195. 
 
286 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Cliajim.^ It appeared in a much emended edition in Buxtoifs 
 Rabbinical Bible, Basel IGl^, 19.^ 
 
 § 63. MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 Through the labours of the Masoretes a twofold form of the 
 text arose among the Jews, the one to which was appended closely 
 the Masoretic endowment, the other which conserved the ancient 
 free Masoretic text. The more, however, that the relations of the 
 Jews, then existing and becoming ever more stringent, led them 
 to embrace and reverence the notation of tradition, so much the 
 more general became the custom of multiplying the Masoretic text 
 by transcripts. Hence it found general admission speedily into all 
 private MSS., and in them had come to be regarded normally as an 
 indispensable aid to the understanding of the text. Since in this 
 way the older unmasoretic MSS. came entirely into disuse, it is 
 easy to understand the late antiquity of those now extant.^ For 
 ecclesiastical objects, however, the ancient form retained its authority 
 so much the more decidedly, and hence the codices destined for 
 use in the Synagogue are all prepared on a model strictly following 
 the Talmudic prescription. 
 
 By the Masoretic settlement of the text the elegant and correct 
 transcription of the same was rendered greatly more difficult. We find 
 accordingly from that time among the Jews great attention paid to 
 the variations arising through transcription, and a careful avoidance 
 of such by means of well corrected copies. Thus arose standard 
 MSS., strictly conformed to the Masoretic text, and carefully 
 
 1 Buxtorf says of this: et in hoc labore innumeri errores permanserunt, Tib p 199. 
 
 2 He himself says of this : nee tarnen credas, omnia esse correcta et emendata : nusquam 
 eiiim ordine in singula inquisivi, sed prout quaeque nunc hie nunc illic obviam accede- 
 rent: ita ad censuram vocavi (praef. ad. Tib.) The account which Buxtorf himself takes 
 of this work in his Tiberias shows how unfounded is the opinion of Eichhorn (Einl. I. 
 438) and others, that " he constructed for himself in many places quite a new Masorah, 
 in order to be able to vindicate, on the principles of his contemporaries, the impeached 
 integrity of our editions of the Bible ! !" 
 
 ■5 Ratio etiam probabllis reddi potest, cur uon habeamus codd. Hcbraeos ita antiques, 
 ut Graecos quosdara V. et N. Ti : quia sn. post Masoretharum criticam et punctationero, 
 ab omnibus receptam, Judaeorum magistri omnes codd., his non conformes, ut profanos 
 et illegitimos damnarunt : unde post pauca secula, omnibus juxta Masoretharum 
 exemplaria descriptis, reliqui rejecti et aboliti. Walton, prolegg. p. 181. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 287 
 
 preserved, wliicb were used for the emendation of otliers, and enjoyed 
 great celebrity, especially where the use of them prevailed. The 
 earliest of these known to us are those of R. Aharon Ben Asher, 
 a Palestinian, and of Ben Nuphthali, a Babylonian Rabbi of the 
 11th century. The former issued such a recension, according to 
 which the Palestinian MSS. were corrected, and this was esteemed 
 in the West the most famous.^ In the East, on the other hand, 
 the Recension of Ben Naphthali was in especial repute, and hence 
 there is a distinction made between "(t^-^trj'i "^"^DD ""^ 7^2 "^IDD-^ 
 Of such MSS., each of which was distinguished by some special 
 excellence, several are mentioned by the Rabbins, as the Codex 
 Hillelis, cod. Sinai, the Pentateuch of Jericho, &c.^ 
 
 Considering these things it was to be expected, that in spite of 
 the care exercised, a great difference would be found in the MSS., 
 of which not only the state of these themselves, but also the 
 commentaries of the Rabbins of the middle ages,^ give proof, which 
 however is generally to be put to the account of negligence and 
 carelessness on the part of the copyist. Hence the observation that 
 the older MSS. correspond more with the Masoretic text than the 
 later, which the greatest negligence has disfigured.*" That, however, 
 readings were altered by the transcribers, on their own authority 
 in opposition to this text, and according to the Targums or the 
 grammar, as Eichhorn thinks (Einl. I., § 134, 135), is an entirely 
 imsupported supposition, and is sufficiently set aside, partly by the 
 acceptance which the work of the Masoretes found in practice, even 
 when blamed in principle, and partly by an exact testing of the 
 Masoretic various lections. 
 
 § 64. CONTINUATION. SYNAGOGUE ROLLS. 
 
 On account of the rabbinical representation of the especial 
 
 1 See the passages of Mainioiiidts, Kimcbi, and otljers, in Buxtorf fil. de punct. aniiq 
 p. 264, sq.. 270, sq. Hottinger Thes. PhiL p. 107, sq. 
 
 2 Comp, Wolf, Bibliotli. Hebr. I. 120, 127. 
 
 3 See Hottinger, 1. cit. p. IOC, sq. Carpzov, Ciit. Sac. p. 368, sq. 
 
 4 Comp. Claud. Cappellanus, Mare Ealibin. infidum. 1667. Keunikott, diss, sup rat. 
 test. Hebr. p. 226, 232, sq., 247, sq. Cappellus, crit. s. II., p. 420, sq. Tycbseu irn 
 Reporter. I. . 169, S- 
 
 5 See Eiclihorn I. 378. De Wette § 108. 
 
28y HISTORY OF THE 
 
 sanctity of the Thorah, and because tliis is solely and wholly 
 appointed for church uses, the rule arose of writing the Pentateuch 
 on special rolls, which consequently were esteemed particu- 
 larly holy.^ The Talmud contains, consequently, the strictest 
 prescriptions as to the material, writing instruments, colours, 
 letters, copyists, &c.^ to be employed in this work. These MSS. 
 are in consequence written in the ancient roll-form on parchment 
 with the greatest calligraphic exactness, though without any punc- 
 tuation. As well the preparation of the skin and the ink, as the 
 training and the deportment of the copyist, are carefully prescribed. 
 In the revision of the copies only very slight errors were endured, 
 when greater ones were found the copy was rejected.^ On this account 
 the text has in all the Synagogue rolls a strict uniformity, which is 
 so far a guarantee for their being securely done. Eichhorn's 
 assertion, " It is lucky that all the copyists have not followed the 
 Synagogue text" (II., 4C5), needs in the first place to be greatly 
 limited [in point of fact], and is incorrect, inasmuch as little profit 
 would have accrued to criticism had we possessed a larger number 
 of still more negligently written codices. In order strictly to prevent 
 the least possible profanation of the Synagogue rolls, it is enjoined 
 that in case of their becoming useless or iiijured, they must be entirely 
 destroyed that no one may abuse them.* Hence the small number 
 of these rolls that has come into the possession of Christians.^ 
 
 § 65. CONTINUATION. PRIVATE MANUSCRIPTS. 
 
 In far less esteem among the Jews were the MSS. destined for 
 
 1 Comp. Baba Batbra, f. 13, 2; 14, 1. Nevertheless each book may be written apart; 
 Gittiii, f. 60, 1. The Hapbtars and Megillotb were written on special rolls. 
 
 2 Comp. Tr. Sopbrim ed Adier (Hamburg, 1799),— probably belonging to the sixtb 
 century, but describing a custom establised from a much older period; in addition 
 Maimonides ItpTl-i -,-> (P. 1. 1, 2) and nn-.n ^;o n'obn (3, c. 7, sqq.) Comp. Scbickard, 
 jus Reg. Hebr 2, p. 89, sq. ed. Carpsov; Wahner Antiqq. Hebr. I. p. 181, sq. ; Eicbboru 
 II. § 344, ff. 
 
 3 See on tbese eastern customs Jabn, Eiul. I., 378, ff. According to Menacbotb, f. 
 29, 2, two mistakes are to be endured, and a correction of them allowed, but if three are 
 found the copy is naught (:5j). Comp. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. Talm., p. 4-57. Wabner 
 1. cit„ p. 204. 
 
 * T33,3 Megillab, fol. 26, 2; comp. also Wagenseil, ad Tr. Sotah, p. 310. 
 a See Carpzov, Crit. Sac, p. 373. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAxMENT. 2^{) 
 
 private use, which they were accubtomed to call profane (□'^7'ICQ)-^ 
 Hence in these the greatest arbitrariness prevailed in the matter 
 of writing. Especially is their form according to the taste of 
 individuals, and hence a variety of which even the Talmud takes 
 notice (Baba Bathra, f. 13, 2.) The greater part are written on 
 parchment, some on coiton -paper, a few on common paper. The 
 ink is throughout black, though frequently there is a difference 
 between the consonants and the points. Initial words and letters 
 are often gilded and emblazoned with other colours.^ On each side 
 the space is carefully divided ; the prose parts are for the most part 
 written in columns, the poetic stichometrically ; ihough there are 
 codices which are without columns. The Hebrew text does not 
 always wholly occupy the columns ; frequently a translati(jn, 
 especially a Targum, is appended, which is sometimes written in 
 the text interlinearly, and also on the margin in smaller letters. — 
 The number and breadth of the liues are throughout casual, and 
 determined by circumstances. The upper and lower luargiu are 
 usually occupied by the Masorah ; the outer notes the Haphtars, 
 Parashes, &c.j and the inner the little Masorah. — The individual 
 books are separated by spaces, which however are quite arbitrary ; 
 nevertheless the books of Samuel, of Kings, of Chronicles, and of 
 Ezra and Nehemiah, appear without these. The codices also differ 
 as to the arraugement of the books (especially the Hagiographa) 
 according to the different countries in which they were written.^ 
 
 Since these MSS. contain a pointed text, and in general many 
 appendages, they have passed through several hands to their 
 completion. The Consonantal Text was the work of the ■^Q'^D 
 proper, who, though he generally was the same as the Punctator 
 (tlpi)' y®*- never combined the writing of tlie consonants and 
 vowels. It was different persons frequently who undertook the 
 task of appending the Masorah and other scholia, of revising 
 the whole, of freshening passages that had become too fnmt 
 to be read, &c. — The whole of the MSS. are demonstrably the 
 production of Jewish copyists ; a few are by Proselytes (hence 
 
 1 " Liber legis punclatus profanus est. ' Buxt. de Puuct. antiq., p. 40, sq. 
 
 2 After the usage of the Middle Age; see Kopp, Bilderuud ycbriften, 1. 178; neverthe- 
 less it was a subject of controversy among the .Jews (^Tychsen, Tentaiiien. de Var. Codd. 
 gen. p 35), though at an earlier period a custom among thtrn (.Josej'bi Autiq XII. 
 2, 11.) 
 
 S See more on tliis in Eichlioru 11. § 3b4, If. 
 
 T 
 
290 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 the placing of Daniel among the Prophets in the cod. 'J3 de Rossi, 
 Christian subscriptions, figures and the like) ; but it is certain 
 tliat none are the production of Christians or monks, as has been 
 alleged ; these have only occasionally furnished MSS., written by 
 Jews, with the Vulgate, if indeed the traces of this, wiiich are but 
 few, are not also to be ascribed to Proselytes.^ 
 
 None of the extant MSS. reach beyond the 12th century, as is 
 quite demonstrable. For the MSS. which bear an earlier date are 
 evidently placed too high by it, and the subscription is the work of 
 a later hand.^ Those codices which are furnished with dates, of 
 which the oldest (No. 154 Kenn.) is placed in a.d. 1106, have issued 
 from the Spanish Jews, of which the subscription of the cod. 326 
 Kenn., which adduces Toledo as the place of its composition, affords 
 evidence.^ Whilst we possess only 5 or 6 dated codices of the 
 12th century, we have nearly 50 of the 13th, about 80 of the 14th, 
 110 of the 1 5th, &c. — On the other hand, with respect to the 
 codices which are not dated, it is very difficult to determine their 
 age, and the internal marks which have been sought for with this 
 intent are anything but self-approving criteria.^ Least of all to be 
 depended on, however, are the conclusions deduced from these 
 marks which would assign to these MSS. a much higher antiquity 
 than belongs to those furnished with dates, as when De Rossi e. gr. 
 places cod. 634 in the 8th, cod. 503 in the 9th or 10th century, &c.^ 
 
 With greater certainty may the country of the codices be 
 determined, even where it is not expressly mentioned, since of this a 
 characteristic indication is furnished particularly by the arrangement 
 of the books, and the decorations of the MSS. f not, however, by 
 the written character, as that is entirely the square character, in 
 respect to which it is extremly difficult to determine the variations 
 characteristic of different countries (see above.) Those codices 
 written for private use in the Rabbinical cursive hand, can only be 
 viewed as an exception ; they are on cotton or on common paper, 
 with many abbreviations, without Masorah or points, and sometimes 
 
 1 See Eicliboni II. § 364, if. 
 
 2 See tbe tboiougbgoiug proof of tbis by Briins in Paulus Neuem Eepertor. II. 3, ff. 
 
 3 Bruns, 1. cit. s. 6, fl'. 
 
 4 Comp. Scbuurrer, de codd. Hebr. V. T. MSS. aetata difficulter determinauda, iu bis 
 dissertatt. pbilol. crit. p. 1—35. 
 
 5 Var. Lectt. prolegg. I. § 16. 
 
 G Comp. Bnuis in tlie Niueii Tbeob Journal von Ammon, Hanlein und Paulus, Bd. 
 VI. s. 7?5, ff. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 291 
 
 furnished with an Arabic translation. According to Kennicott 
 they possess scarcely an antiquity of 500 years, and are of no 
 critical value. The MSS. found among the Chinese Jews are partly 
 Synagogue rolls, partly private MSS., and altogether resemble 
 those with which we are familiar.^ 
 
 § 66. COLLECTIONS OF VARIOUS READINGS. 
 
 The collection of eastern and western readings, which was printed 
 by Jacob Ben Chajim in the 2d ed. of the Bomberg Bible, has 
 reference only to the variety of marginal readings, and in that 
 case, the conclusion that it must be older than the introduction of 
 pointing, lies under well founded doubts.^ In the end of the 13th 
 century R. Meir Hallevi (Haramah), the son of Todros, composed 
 his work, pi'miT' ^VD r\1D?2 "^DD (printed at Florence 1750, 
 imperfectly at Berlin 1761), in which the various readings of the 
 codd. in the Pentateuch are noted according to the alphabetical 
 order of the words, and followed by remarks.^ In the 16th century 
 Menachem de Lonzano (in his pi'^in 11i^' printed at Constan- 
 tinople 1538, Ven. 1618), and Salomo Norzi (in his ^';^ rin3?2 
 Mantua 1744) collected various readings.^ 
 
 Among the Christians Seb. Mtinster and others have in their 
 editions of the Bible appended certain various readings ; a somewhat 
 larger collection (the collation of 24 editions and 5 Erfurt MSS.) 
 was undertaken by J. H. Michaelis in his edition of ] 720 ; but the 
 collation of the MSS. was done so cursorily that it is almost good 
 for nothing.* Even less useful are the excerpts from MSS. to be 
 found in the edition of Houbigant (Paris 1753.)^ The first 
 comprehensive collation was that made by Benj. Kennicott in 1770, 
 who, liberally furnislied with means by the English, caused nearly 
 GOO codices in all parts of Europe, and above 60 ancient editions 
 to be collated. A long controversy, in part conducted after a 
 manner wholly suited to the age, led to the result that the work 
 
 1 See the collatiou iu Eicbborn II., § 376. 
 
 2 See De Wette, EinL, § 92. 
 
 •^ Coinp. Bruns, 1. e., s. 764, ff'. 
 
 * Comp. De Rossi, 1. cit., § 37, 38. 
 
 5 See RoseDmiiller, Handbucb d. Liier. 1. 231. 
 
 C See Eoseumiiller, 1. cit. 11. 35, ff". 
 
 T 2 
 
292 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 hastily put together was not the fruit of solid labour, but was 
 almost spoiled by unskilfulness and negligence on the part of its 
 principal managers (Bruns only excepted).^ With much greater 
 care and skill, and with even richer materials than his predecessors, 
 de Rossi edited his Collection of Various Readings (Parma 1784 
 — 1788, IV. Voll., 4to), a work which, though not without 
 defects, is still highly valued, and one of great importance for Old 
 Testament criticism.^ The critical editions of Doederlein and 
 Meisner (Lips. 1793, 8vo), and of Jahn Vienn. 1807), have 
 proceeded from extant collections, of which they contain a selection. 
 — Only some MSS. have been fully and satisfactorily described as 
 the Cassel one by J. D. Michaelis, the Konigsberg by Lilienthal, 
 the Nurenberg by Nagel, the Stuttgard by Sehelling, &c.® 
 
 § 67. PRINTED TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. PRINCIPAL 
 EDITIONS.* 
 
 After, in the first instance, certain portions of the Old Testament 
 had been issued from the press in Italy in the latterhalf of the loth 
 century, of which the Psalter, with the Comment of Kimchi printed 
 (probably at Bologna) in 1477, in 4to, was the commencement, 
 the whole Old Testament appeared for the first time in 1488 at 
 Soncino in small folio, a principal edition, inasmuch as it was 
 derived from MSS., and contains much that is peculiar, though 
 somewhat imperfectly. From it, according to Bruns (1. c, s. 758, 
 AT.,) were derived the Brescia edition 1494 (used by Luther), the 
 Venetian 1518 (the Bomberg Bible), the Basel 1536 (by Seb. 
 Miinster), &c. 
 
 A second principal edition is the Complutensian Polyglott, the 
 Hebrew text of which was edited and revised according to MSS. by 
 Jewish Christians (1514 — 17). This also has been repeated in 
 some editions. 
 
 1 Comp.tbe description, and especially tlie literary information ap. Hartmann.Tycbsen 
 on Wanderungen u. s. w. I. 405, if., II. i. 1, ff. 
 
 2 See Eosenmiiller, 1. c. II. 40, ff.; Hartmann, 1. c. II. i. 243, ff. 
 
 3 See Eosenmiiller, 1. c, s. 22, ff. 
 
 4 Comp. De Rossi de Hebr. Typograpb. orig. &c. Le Long, Bibl. Sacra ed. Mascb; 
 O. G. Tycbsen, and especially for tbe literature of this subject Hartmann, 1, c. 1. 317, ff. 
 See also Eicbborn II., § 391, ff. 
 
TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 2'J;i 
 
 The third and last principal edition is the second Bomberg 
 Bible, edited by Jacob Ben Chajim, (Ven. 1525 — 26), whicb has 
 been followed, though not without alterations, in most of the other 
 editions. * 
 
 A mixed text is found in the Antwerp Polyglott (1509 — 72), 
 formed from the Complutensian and one of the Bomberg editions, 
 and from this again have proceeded the Plantin editions, the 
 Hebrew text of the Parisian (1645), and London 1657, Polyglotts, 
 and the manual edition of Reineccius. 
 
 Also mixed aud with a collation of the Venetian, Antwerpian, 
 and other editions, is the edition of Elias Hutter (first at Hamb. 
 1587) of which the Nissel edition (1692) is a reprint. 
 
 Buxtorf edited a text revised with strict regard to the Masorah 
 in his manual edition of 1011, and the Rabbinical Bible (1618, 
 19.) — Peculiar is the edition of Manasseh Ben Israel, produced with 
 regard to the older editions, the Grammar and the Masorah (first 
 at Amsterdam 1030, 81.) 
 
 The edition of Joseph Athias (first at Amsterdam 1661) was 
 formed from two MSS. and the older editions, and to this the more 
 recent editions are conformed, as only some of them have used in 
 addition to it manuscript aids (as Jablonsky 1699, Opitius 1709.) 
 With greater or less accuracy the text has been reprinted in the 
 Rditions of Clodius, Leusden, J. H. Michaelis, Ev. van der Hooght, 
 B. Kennicott, Simonis, Hahn. 
 
( 2'J5 ) 
 
 CHAPTER FOURTH. 
 
 HISTORY UF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 I. OF THE ANCIENT VERSIONS. 
 1. GREEK VERSIONS. 
 
 § 68. ALEXANDRINE TRANSLATION. NATURE OF IT CONSIDERED 
 
 GENERALLY. 
 
 The basis of the diction of this translation is the Greek vulgar 
 tongue, formed, during the later Macedonian age, witli a foreign 
 Hebrew colouring (helleuistic language),^ which, frora causes easily 
 understood, appears with greater prominence here than in the most 
 of the Apocrypha and the New Testament. Not only have many 
 Hebrew words been adopted directly, and without any accommo- 
 dation to the Greek idiom (such as (f)aaeK, cra/SeK, ^a88lv, vadivl/x, 
 et al.), but the grammar also has in many respects been closely 
 assimilated to what is peculiarly Hebrew.^ The Alexandrian 
 translator betrays himself especially by a frequent intermingling of 
 Egyptian expressions, or at least by a use of Greek terms for 
 Egyptian objects, thereby not only elucidating really Egyptian 
 objects properly enough, but not unfrequently also making a foreign 
 and unsuitable application of these. ^ 
 
 1 See conceruing tbis Winer, Or. des N. T. L. Spracbgebr. p. 14, ff, 2te Aiisg. 
 - Comp. Schwartz, obseivatt. quaed. de stilo LXX. in Olearius, do stilo N.T. p. 294, 
 sq. Winer, p. 26, ff. 
 
 •5 Comp. e.g. the words dp-rajSii (Babr ad Herod. I. 192), iraaTotpopiiov (Creuzer, 
 Symb. I. p. 247), o-xoTvos (Ps. cxxxix. 3, comp. Babr ad Her. II. 0), t/Sts et al. See 
 Ilody, de bibliorum text, original. 1. II. c. 4. Geseniiis, Comment, z. .)es. I. p. 60. Suirz, 
 de dial Maced. Alexandr. p. 81, sq. 
 
296 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 The translator, on the one hand, certainly adheres to ihe 
 exegetical tiadition of his contemporaries in Palestine. How 
 much he has availed himself of the aid hereby proffered, is apparent 
 especially fnmi the considerable number of correctly interpreted 
 phrases, which are atr. \e-y6iJbeva, and generally obscure and 
 enigmatical,^ having in most cases to be elucidated by means of the 
 cognate dialects only ; of which those Alexandrians were familiar 
 only with the Aramaean — hardly with the Arabic.^ 
 
 On the other hand there is manifestly a want of fidelity, literality, 
 and precision. An indifference about the literal rendering of the 
 original betrays itself in the translation, and a tendency rather to 
 suit and recommend itself to the age and its customs. Hence 
 what seemed less intelligible is arbitrarily changed ; the tropical 
 phrase, for instance, is confounded with tlie natural.^ Where the 
 meaning of the original seems to the translator to be unsuitable in 
 respect alike to what is historical, sesthetical, and doctrinal, he also 
 indulges in more or less arbitrary alterations.* In making 
 additions, omissions, and other alterations at pleasure, he does not 
 confine himself to single phrases and expressions, but extends such 
 to whole sections. This is especially apparent where the translator 
 — more ambitious for originality — had to contend with a difficult 
 ground-text (as in the book of Job), or where the character of a 
 particular age and book afforded scope for a freer execution (as in 
 Jeremiah. Daniel, Esther.)^ 
 
 Much as the translator seems disposed, from national pride, to 
 introduce allusions to the Jews of Egypt into his work,^ yet 
 doctrinal and philosophical representations of Alexandrian Judaism, 
 as existing at a later period, are not traceable, — the Alexandrian 
 school language does not even appear. Opinions and doctrines are 
 marked only by what is Jewish in general, — not by anything 
 peculiarly Alexandrian.'' The only thing that in this respect stands 
 
 1 Comp. Fischer, prolusiones, in quibus varii loci versioiium vett. graec. explicantiir 
 et illustrantnr. Lips. 1799, 8. Eiclihorn, Einl. I. p. 469, fl". 
 
 i Comp. Gesenius, loc. cit. p. 63. Hartinann, liiigaist. Einl. p. 322, ff. 
 
 3 See e.g. Gesenius, loc. oit. p. 57, if. For the deviations of the Alexandrine transla- 
 tion from the Hebrew text generally, see the vouchers in Cappelli crit. s. !. IV. 
 
 * Comp. Carpzov, crit. s. p. 505, sqq. 
 
 5 See my Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. XLVI. ff. 
 
 6 Comp. (iesenius, loc. cit. p. 62. 
 
 7 Comp. Bauinj^aiten-Crusius, bibl. Tlieol. p. Ill', tl". 
 
INTKRPIIETATION OF THK OLD TESTAMENT. 297 
 
 forth characteristically is an attempt at syncretism — an accommo- 
 dating of what is Jewish to what is heathenish.^ 
 
 Along with this, the varied character of the several books must 
 not be overlooked, whose unequal rendering was early noticed, and 
 is at once apparent. Thus, the translation of the Pentateuch is 
 distinguished by being literal as well as elegant.^ So also the book 
 of Ecclesiastes differs from the others in its servile literality ; at the 
 same time in the very defective style peculiar to it, &c.^ Add to 
 this, the varied rendering of the same Hebrew phrase in the different 
 books, which can be suffioitr-ntly explained only on the supposition 
 of a variety of authors."* Whilst Bertholdt has here made the bold 
 assertion, that " almost each book discovers traces of a diflPerent 
 translator,"^ such an observation can be vindicated only by having 
 respect to differences characteristic of the whole, and not merely to 
 single words ; and besides Valckenaer has very properly pointed to 
 the fact, that differences in individual cases were in a great measure 
 called forth by the confusion of the text introduced at a later 
 period, in support of the opinion that the translators were but few 
 in number.^ 
 
 § 69. PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THIS PECULIARITY IS TO BE 
 EXPLAINED. 
 
 To explain the peculiar character of this translation, recourse has 
 been had to singular hypotheses, the most notable of which is that 
 of O. G. Tychsen, setting forth that the translation had proceeded 
 from Hebrew MSS., written in Greek characters -^ some externalities 
 have also been adduced which have served to clear discrepancies 
 
 1 Comp. e.(/. ItKn'di.ia (f. n^)2n comp. D:odor. Sic. I. 75. o irpoariiyopsvov (tbe 
 Egyptians) 'A\v6tiav. Aeliaii. V. H. XIV. 34. koI iKaXtiTo to ayaXfxa 'AXrideia, De 
 Wetie, Archaolog. § 199), the doctrine concerning giiardian angels (Deuter. xxxiii. 2. 
 Comp. Wiuer, Reall( x I. p. 388,) UpoSovXoi (f. n^:r3, 3 Esdr. i. 2, v. 53, 58, viii. 5, 51) 
 k^nytlaOai (Levit. xiv. O?. Euhnken ad Timaei lex. PI. p. Ill) et al. 
 
 ^ Quos (sc. libros Mosis) nos quoque plus quam celeros profitemiir consouare^ciiin 
 Hebraicis. Hieronymus praef. ad qiiat-st. in Genes. 
 
 3 Comp. Jahn, Einl. I.s. 159, ft'. 
 
 * Comp. Hody, 1. cit. p 244, sqq. L. Bos, prolegg. ad edit. LXX. interpp-^^cap. 1. 
 
 5 Einl. II. p. 533. 
 
 " See his Diatribe de Af'stobulo Jiidaeo ed. Luzac, p. 62, sq. Comp. Hall. Lit. Zeit. 
 1S16, I. s. 18. 
 
 7 See his Tentnmen de variis codicuni llebi. V T. Ms. generibiis. .Rostooh, 1772. 
 
y!J8 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 liere and there, and are therefore certaiuly worthy of regard; but 
 they have failed to discover the true principles of the construction 
 of the text. To this class belong, errors caused by imperfect 
 hearing in the case of dictation ;^ differences in the original 
 manuscripts from which the translation was made ;'^ ignorance and 
 negligence on the part of the translators. 
 
 The translation itself, by unmistakeable marks, points out Alex- 
 andria as the place of its origin. Its nature can therefore be 
 adequately estimated only by a knowledge of the character and 
 position of the Jews resident there. Judaism taken generally, 
 being an element standing by itself, and conspicuous for its nicely 
 defined peculiarity, was regarded by heathen antiquity with haired 
 and scorn ; and in Alexandria this relation held the place of a 
 prominent feature.'^ This naturally produced a spirit of emulation, 
 and a tendency to go in with the manner of life and general spirit 
 peculiar to the locality, — a tendency to syncretism, by which they 
 sought to vindicate what was their own by assuming what was 
 foreign. The translation now under consideration may be regarded 
 as the earliest effort of such a tendency ; and from the time of 
 its origin we are able distinctly to follow its evident progress. 
 
 The literary spirit of Alexandria was from the time of the first 
 Ptolemies, generally characterised by a tendency to fall back on 
 the productions of a brilliant antiquity, already on the eve of 
 vanishing away.^ The vigorous age of Greek originality, and the 
 free development of a highly polished genius, were succeeded by rich 
 and varied learning, and a tame imitating of the ancient models, 
 which were eagerly studied and lauded. Thus there arose among 
 these scholars a peculiar branch of scientific pursuit, which applied 
 itself to the criticism and interirretation of the ancient authors; 
 both of these, however, they performed, not in a modern, but in a 
 peculiarly antique style.® 
 
 Against this especially (Hassenkamp) : Entdeckter Urspriing der alten Bibeliiberset- 
 zungen. Mindcn 1775. For a history of the oontraversy s. Tychsen von Hartmann, II. 1 
 s. 4l,ff. 
 
 1 So Hassenkamp, loc cit. s. 36, ft". Hartmann, ling. Einl. s. 35, ft'. 
 
 2 This was brought forward with especial partiality by Cappellus and bis school. 
 
 ■^ Comp. .Joseph, de b. Jud. II. 18: kutcl 6i ti'ji/ 'AXi^dvSpnav ati fiiv h" (rrd<Tiv 
 Trpos TO 'louKa'iKov toIs ky\^u}pioi's. Gieseler, K. Gescb. I. s. 46, ft!". 
 
 * Comp. Heyne, de genio seculi Ftolemaeornm, opnsec. acnd. I. p. 76, sqq. Matter, 
 
 pssai historique sur I'ecote d'Alexandrie. Paris, 1820. 
 
 ^ Comp. Wolf, prolegg. ad Homerum, p. CXCIV. sq. 
 
 2 
 
TNTEKfUKTATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 299 
 
 The Alexandrian criticism set out from assuming the perfection 
 of the writer [e.f/. of Homer, Hesiod), and determined the 
 genuineness of an expression or passage according to its character 
 as compared with this presumed perfection. The ohject aimed at 
 was not to ascertain and establish the original as such, but to judge 
 [KptriKo], aestimatores) and amend authors, according to aesthetic 
 principles, and "grammar." Eustathius therefore calls these 
 critics TOV<; Kara T't]v ypafXfMUTLKrjv nrapaZocnv elSorwi Kpcveiv ra 
 TTotnfiaTa. Hence they were most skilful grammarians {Soki- 
 ficorarot ypa/ju/xaTLKoL Athenaeus.)^ The consequence of this 
 principle of criticism was an unbounded license in the amending, 
 especially of Homer, — a proceeding which without this principle 
 would be quite incomprehensible."'^ 
 
 The principles of interpretation advocated by the Alexandrians, 
 were intimately connected with this criticism. As there, so here, 
 they started with the principle of perfection, especially in Homer, 
 inasmuch as, regarding him as the source of all science and 
 knowledge, they also sought to place him in harmony with the 
 speculation and scientific developments of their day. Such ^TjTrjfxara 
 were the occupations of the XvtikoI,^ who, following more ancient 
 philosophers, brought allegorical interpretation more and more 
 into vogue. 
 
 How much the translation of the Old Testament by the Alex- 
 andrian Jews, critically considered, is in keeping with this profane 
 criticism, is seen at a glance. In this translation we have also a 
 grammatical SiopOcoo-i^, which followed the original, and critical 
 and exegetical tradition, only so far as this could be done in unison 
 with the other purposes of the translators. In this way scope was 
 given for a freer exposition of the Holy Scripture, and Alexandrian 
 Judaism had now an opportunity of possessing something pecuHarly 
 its own, and of placing itself on a par with, or rather above, 
 heathenism. This tendency shewed itself prominently even in the 
 case of Aristobulus (in the beginning of the 2d century B.C.), who 
 
 1 Comp. Clericus, ars critica I., p. 2, Wolff, 1. cit. p. CCXXXIII., sq. 
 
 ■2 So says Wolf, e. (/. about Zenodatus' review of Homer: saepe praeclarissimos at. 
 optimos versus expungit, interdum tolas peo-Eis contamiiiat, alia contrahit, alia addit, 
 omneniciue sibi in Iliada velut in proprium opus, arrogat potestatem. — Sed ineptissinie 
 versatur passim in traiisponeudo et in lacunis, quas teraere faeit, suo ingenio cxplendis 
 etc., p. CCI. sq. 
 
 3 Comp. Lud. Kiister, liistoria crit. Homeri sect. VI. 
 
300 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 regarded the Mosaic Law as the basis of the more deep aud 
 important philosophy of the Greeks, taken as a whole, and by whom 
 the beginnings of allegorical interpretation were even then being 
 developed, which practice was ever coming into greater and more 
 decided repute, as is proved by the example of Philo, and that of 
 the many ancients who thought with him, and whom he frequently 
 appealed to.^ 
 
 § 70. HOW THE ALEXANDRIAN TRANSLATION ORIGINATED. OLDEST 
 HISTORY THEREOF. 
 
 As respects the Alexandrian origin of the LXX. ; the earUest 
 historical notice which in this respect we possess, bears important 
 testimony, affording, at the same time, minute information con- 
 cerning its rise. Aristobulus,^ in seeking to prove the acquaintance 
 of the old Greek philosophers with the Law, maintains that a 
 translation of the Pentateuch existed even before the time of 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus and Demetrius Phalereus, of which those 
 philosophers availed themselves ; he then adds : /; ^' o\r] ep/jir)veia 
 Ttov Bca Tov voaov TrdvTwv eiri rod Trpo'^ajopevdevTO'; (piXaSeXcfiov 
 j3aaLKeQ)'i — A'r]/j,r]Tpiou rod €^a\r)pe(o<i Trpay/jbarevaa/jiivou to, irepl 
 
 TOVTCOV. 
 
 The hypothesis concerning a Greek translation as existing so far 
 back as the times of Pythagoras, Plato, and others, devised for the 
 sake of the system of Aristobulas, must here be entirely set aside. 
 It is however important that he mentions it as a thing known and 
 settled in his day, that the translation of the Old Testament, then 
 in existence, must be traced to the times of Ptolemy Philadelphus 
 and Demetrius Phalereus. He evidently regards Demetrius 
 Phalereus {irpcuy^arevcrafx.evovra irepl tovtwv) as having occasioned 
 it. As so ancient a testimony this notice is deserving in the outset 
 
 1 Comp. Dopke, Hcrmeneiitik derN.T.L. ScLriftst. s>. Ill, if. — Long ago tbe trutli licre 
 was seen by Ccllarius (Je LXX. iiiterpp ^ 20j : erat illo tempore iiuu optinius stHtiis ecck - 
 >siae Judaeorum.sed a literali seii'ii ut pliiriiuum ad allcgoricum desiliebatur: quan caussa 
 (ait, ut mallent sensiim aliquera interpretes sequi,qui ttira mceptiis erat inter Judaeos, 
 quart! qui litteris et verborum ordiiie ex cuiiloxtu se prolerebat 
 
 2 In his Coinmentary on the Pentateuch {fi tcSu icpuiu i/6/iu>i/ *(j/*iji/f I'a. l'',useb. 
 praop. evaiig. VII. 13), Fragment in Clem. Ai. biromiii. 1. p. 3lv!, ai. Syllmrf^, und 
 Eiistb. pr. ev. !X. 6; XUI.II. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 801 
 
 of fall confidence, principally because of its simplicity ; it gains 
 still more in this respect, when closely examined. Fur if we 
 consult hisiory, it in no respect contradicts it, as has been imagined. 
 Demetrius certainly did not live under Ptolemy Philadelpbus, but 
 under bis predecessor, Pt. Lagus, and died soon after bis deatb.^ 
 But Aristobulus mentions bim as only the originator of tbe 
 work, and says tbat the ivlwle was accomplished only under Pt. 
 Philadelpbus. But what is mentioned about Demetrius Phalereus, 
 especially what be did under Ptolemy Pagus, is quite in keeping 
 with tliis. He advised tbe king in particular : ra irepi ^aaiXeia<i 
 KoX riyefiovia^; ^i/SXia fcrdadat kuI dvayaicoaKeiv,^ and acted an 
 important part in tbe legislation introduced by bim. ^ He himself 
 was conspicious as an author, and, (according to Diogenes Laertius) 
 excelled all tbe Peripatetics of bis day, in tbe most diversified 
 sciences. 
 
 Along with this we must take into consideration the kind 
 disposition manifested by Pt. Lagus towards tbe Jews. Among 
 those who voluntarily left their own country to live under his 
 government in Egypt, was the wise High-priest Ezecbias, on whom 
 a contemporary author pronounces tbe highest eulogies.* — Even 
 Hecataeus, in his book on Egypt, shows himself so favourably 
 disposed towards the Jews, that it is evident during what period, 
 and under what influence he lived ; at all events, we must in his 
 case presuppose a certain degree of familiarity with the Jewish 
 writings.^ 
 
 If in this way a share in tbe work is to be ascribed to Demetrius 
 Phalereus, then it is evident, that the design of it was chiefly 
 
 1 S. Mermippus ap. Diogeu. Laert. V. 78. 
 
 2 Plutarch apophthegm, reg. t. VIII. p. 124, ed. Hutteu. 
 
 3 '2vvu)v Ttt) nToXt/iatu) vo/xodccrlui fjp^E. Aelian, Var. hist. III. 17, s. Perizonius 
 ad h. 1. 
 
 4 Hecataeus Abderita ap. Joseph, c. Apion. I. p. lOiS: tijv xl/uxfiv ou-r' dyoijTov, kn 
 Se Kai Xiyitv fitfaTos Kai foTs irepl twu irpayfxdTwv I'lTTip tis aAXos Enirtipov. 
 
 5 From which the nou-geuuiiieness of the fragments of Hec. ought by uo means to 
 have been inferred; see Hengstenberg, Beitrage I., p. 281. — This shows also in how 
 modified a sense the arguments against the familiarity of heathen authors with the Old 
 Testament, advanced by Hody against the participation of Demetrius in such a work, 
 must be understood (s. 1. cit. 1. 11. c. 3.) Why should there not, in Alexandria, have 
 been a time, when a lively interest prevailed in behalf of the literature peculiar to the 
 Jewish nation— especially considering the predilection for the East, awakened since 
 tlie time of Alexander '? Compare also the manner in which Hermippus — (at the time of 
 Ptolemy Euergetos)— also under this Alexandrine influence — declares himself for an 
 affinity between Pythagorean philosophy iiud the Mosaic Law ; Joseph, c. Ap.l, p. 1046. 
 
•"302 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 literary. To this it has been objected that the translation was called 
 forth rather by the exigency of the Egyptian Jews, and was executed 
 for ecclesiastical purposes, especially that of being read in the 
 synagogues.^ But apart from the circumstance that the question 
 here is one of ancient historical testimony, which ought never to 
 be treated lightly, we maintain that in this way the character of 
 the translation can never be explained. And the supposition 
 that it was originally designed for religious purposes is all the less 
 admissible, inasmuch as Alexandrine Judaism being ever eager to 
 maintain an at least external bond of ecclesiastical union with 
 Palestine, a closer adherence to the tendency prevalent there would 
 have been the consequence.^ Besides, we know so little about the 
 rise of synagogues in Egypt (Philo mentions them first), that this 
 hypothesis is destitute of all historical authority. 
 
 Aristobulus says that all the books of the Old Testament were at 
 that time translated into Greek, and that the work was begun under 
 Demetrius Phalereus,^ accordingly under Ptolemy Lagus, and 
 finished under Ptolemy Philadelphus. This testimony it has been 
 attempted to explain as if Aristolulus was here speaking of the 
 Pentateuch only.^ But manifestly with injustice, for the words : 
 rcov Bt,a Tov uofiov, especially appealed to, must be understood as 
 used by Alexandrians, who attaching to the Law as compared with 
 the other books of Scripture, the idea of superiority, regarded the 
 latter in the light of a supplement to the former, and used the phrase 
 vo/xo'i in the wider acceptation. Besides, the context is expressly 
 opposed to such an explanation of what Aristobulus says, for he 
 regards the Pentateuch as translated already at a much earlier 
 period ; to this the proper antithesis would be : " the remaining 
 portion of Scripture," and this is evidently implied in the words : 
 y S" okrj ipfMrjveia, and tmv — iravTcou.^ Again, Aristobulus could 
 not have said that the translation of tlie Pentateuch alone required 
 the time he mentions. It follows that a more comprehensive work 
 was meant. 
 
 1 Thus after the example of Hody, 1. cit. p. 99, many otlit-rs, s. Bertboldt, s. 524, de 
 Wette, s. 60, 
 ^ Comp. Gieseler, K. Gescli. I., p. 49, flF. [Davidson's Translation, I. 42.— Tr.] 
 
 3 On which account he at first names him alone : Sit^pfxi'ivevTui irpd Arint]Tpiou t. 
 <j>a\.. etc. 
 
 4 S. Hody, 1. cit. p. 168. 
 
 5 Comp. Valukenuer, 1. cit. p. 61, sq. 
 
INTERPRKTATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. '^03 
 
 The testimony of Aristobulus has been disputed on internal 
 grounds also. But though it is readily conceded, that the translation 
 was effected by degrees, still, the character of the work by no means 
 argues an intervention of very long periods during the process of 
 its execution. — For what has been said about the completion of the 
 whole after Ptol. Philadelphus, will not stand a strict examination.^ 
 Thus an appeal in proof that the translation of the Book of Esther 
 was finished under Ptol. Philometer has been made to a subscription, 
 according to which this book was brought to Egypt under a Ptolemy 
 and Cleopatra. But this subscription refers only to the apocryphal 
 additions to the Book of Esther, which certainly are of a much 
 later date than the rest of the translation.'-^ Other grounds of 
 dispute are, as a whole, based on differences of quotation (in the 
 case of Sirach, Philo), as compared with our present text, the 
 numerous modified forms in which theLXX. subsequently appeared 
 being entirely overlooked, and a hasty conclusion come to, respecting 
 the late origin of the translation of m entire book. 
 
 § 71. CONTINUATION. FURTHER HISTORi^ OF THE ALEXANDRINE 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 The next testimony from history respecting the Alexandrian 
 translation is the prologue of the Book of Sirach, all the more 
 interesting because it contains the opinion of a Jew of Palestine on 
 the subject. He begs the indulgence of his readers in respect to 
 his own translation {ov <yap laoSwafiet avra, etc.,) and adds : ov 
 fjbovov he ravTa dWa kuI avro^ 6 v6fio<; Kal at TrpocfirjTelat Kau ra 
 \oL7ra TWf (Si^Xiwv ov fiiKpav e%ei rrjv Siacpopav iv eavroi'i 
 Xeyo/jueva. The author even says, that during his residence among 
 the Egyptians he had observed a striking dissimilarity in their 
 whole iraiheia (spiritual training),^ and thus discloses the differences 
 existing between the Jews of Palestine and Egypt, not only in the 
 varied style of writing peculiar to each, but also in matters of deeper 
 import, — the difference of their position in respect to the law, and 
 
 1 See the grounds for tbis most acutely stated by Hody, p. 188, sq. 
 
 2 Comp. Walton, prolegg. p. 367, sq. Valckenaer, p. 33 and 63. 
 
 3 See Bretscbneider's Comment, p. 47, sq., for a correct interpretation of the somewhat 
 obscure words, ivpov oii fiih-pai Traifisi'as &(f)6ixoiov. 
 
304 IlISTUKV OF THE 
 
 tlie manner of appreli ending and treating it peculiar to tlicni 
 respectively.^ 
 
 In wLat otlier respects this difference became apparent, and the 
 manner of its progress in general, cannot now be ascertained with 
 accuracy. At all events the Alexandrians seem to have been aware 
 of the importance of raising their translation to a high standard, 
 and of guarding against all grounds for any doubt about its harmony 
 with the original. In this way legends, having their origin in a 
 highly embellished representation of facts, were fabricated for the 
 purpose of placing the translation in a favourable light. Such a 
 legendary representation of the origin of this translation is the 
 letter addressed by Aristeas, a functionary at the Court of Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus, to his brother Philocrates, which sets forth, that the 
 law was translated at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus by 
 seventy-two scribes, invited for that purpose from Palestine.^ This 
 document, supported by a profusion of spurious records,^ has for 
 its basis so7ne historical facts, which, however, are altered and 
 embellished at pleasure : as, for instance, the part taken in the 
 translation by Demetrius, the interest evinced by Philadelphus in 
 the carrying out of the work, the liberation of the captive Jews in 
 Egypt, &c., — so that its spuriousness needs no further proof.* 
 
 The design of the legend is manifestly, on the one hand, to 
 enhance the claims of the translation by setting forth the part 
 taken in it by heathen ; and on the other, to give prominence to its 
 authentic harmony with the original by representing the learned of 
 Palestine as its authors. This design is appiireut especially towards 
 the close, where Demetrius commands, after the reading of the I.aw 
 is finished, to pronounce an anathema on him wlio ventures in 
 the least particular to alter it.^ From quite a similar spirit has 
 
 1 Whence be was able, witb peculiar emphasis, to recommend to the Egyptians, a 
 book, written so much iu the genuine spirit of Palestine, as the sayings of Sirach. 
 
 2 Best edited by Hody, 1. cit. p, 1, sq. For the remaining portion of the literature of 
 this fictitious piece see Roseumiiller, Handb. d. Liter, der Bibl. Krit. u. Exeg. s. 344, ff. 
 
 3 According to the Alexandrian way ; comp. the 2d and 3d B. of Makkab., the Supple- 
 ments to the B. of Esther, &c. 
 
 4 See on this subject Hody, 1. cit. 1. 1 (especially against ihe defence of Is. Vossius), 
 Rosenmiiller, loc. cit. p. 358, ff. 
 
 5 P. XXXV. ed. Hody : kKiXtvat. Siapdaaadai /caGtos t'Oos auTuli ecTiv ; tt t«s 
 Sta<7Ktvd<Tei, TTpocTidtii f] ueTa<pipwii ti id avvoXuv tuiv yiypa/x/xiioop, fj TroioiifXEVoi 
 a<paip(<jiv' h'aXu'S touto 'Trpd<7(T0i>Te.t, 'iva £ia. tt ai/ t 6i aivaa Kal fxivoVT a 
 
 ((>v\d<T(Ttl Tui. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 305 
 
 proceeded the commentum of Greek grammarians, to tlie effect that 
 Pisistratus had united 72 (or 70) learned men to revise the text of 
 Homer, and that the Eecensions of Zenodotus and Aristarchus 
 were declared the most excellent, — the chronological error affording 
 in this case also an instructive parallel.^ 
 
 This letter was known even to Josephus, and he has with some 
 unimportant alterations embodied it in his Archaology,^ — a 
 proceeding adopted repeatedly by this author.^ Philo has made a 
 freer use of it. As to the chief particular — that of the Palestinian 
 origin of the translation — he certainly is at one with it ; but in 
 other respects, he adds to the legend kindred embellishments.* 
 The translators, each by himself, accompHsh the work, and in virtue 
 of a wonderful inspiration, they all harmonize exactly. The 
 syncretistic- Alexandrian character of the legend is in this case 
 still more apparent, inasmuch as Philo not only prominently holds 
 up to view the participation of Philadelphus in the translation, but 
 also fixes the Isle of Pharos as the place where it was made, and 
 supposes that the festival there celebrated in honour of Isis,^ may 
 have been dedicated to the origin of this translation.*^ As in the 
 letter of Aristeas, so here mention is made of the Law only, in 
 accordance with the Alexandrian idea of its peculiar sanctity. 
 
 This legend, — perhaps at first orally fabricated, — may not have 
 assumed a written form until shortly bef(jre the times of Philo 
 and Josephus. This circumstance might at least throw light on the 
 way in which Philo makes use of it. The high respect, at that 
 time, paid to the translation in question by the hellenistic Jews, 
 who made use of it even in the Synagogues/ invested the legend 
 with most decided popularity. Even the Jews of Palestine received 
 these representations, and traces of them appear in the Talmud.^ 
 
 1 Comp. Leo AUatius, de patria Homeri c. 5. Villoison, anecdota Gr. II. p. 182, sqq. 
 '^ S. Ant. XII., 2, 2—14. Coucerning the differences see Rosenmiiller, loc. cit. p. 362, ff. 
 » E.fj. in the case of the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther, comp. Ant. XI. 
 6, 6, ff. ; in the ease of apocryphal Ezra, S. Aut. XL, 1, ff. 
 * De vita Mosis II. p. 660, ed. Mangey. 
 
 5 Pharia of Isis. Comp. Marsham, canon chrou. p. 154. Creuzer, Symb. I., s. 320^ 
 II., s. 349. 
 
 6 There is no ground whatever with Eichhorn (Eepert I., s. 266, ff.), because of 
 these digressions of Philo, for endeavouring to find the Palestinian account of the 
 matter in the letter of Aristeas, and the Alexandrian in the story of Philo. 
 
 7 Comp. Hody, 1. cit. p. 224, sq- Josephus also uses it more than the Hebrew text ; 
 see the writings quoted by De Wette, s. 61. 
 
 S. Moriuus, exercitt. bibl. t. I., p. 352, sqq. 
 
 U ' 
 
806 THE HISTOllY OF THE 
 
 These legends were most readily received by the Christian Fathers, 
 and with them they partially assumed new and anomalous misre- 
 presentations and embellishments of the original facts ;^ besides 
 the Philonic notion of the inspiration of this translation." Only 
 the sound critical mind of Jerome opposed these fables and 
 combated them resolutely.^ 
 
 § 72. THE RISE OF NEW GREEK TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 Notwithstanding the high estimation in which the Alexandrian 
 version "was held by Jews and Christians, still the occurrence of 
 differences could not fail to awaken suspicions as to its authority. 
 This seems, in the first instance, to have been the case with the 
 more strict Jews of Palestine, who, in course of time, were led to 
 regard it as a heretical performance,* since Greek literature, and 
 the study of it, had, especially since the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 become obnoxious to them. But the Christians, who ever 
 entertained a high regard for the origin of the translation, 
 sustained their part in the controversy by accusing the Jews of 
 having corrupted the text of the LXX., from motives of opposition 
 to the doctrines of Christianity. Both these features appear very 
 characteristically in tlie writings of Justin Martyr : the Jews with 
 him maintain (SiSaaKa\.ot<; vjjbajv, oirive^ ToXfi&ai \eyeiv), that the 
 translation of the LXX. is incorrect ;^ but he everywhere declares 
 himself convinced that the Alexandrine translation embraces the 
 correct reading, and that the Jews have corrupted the text.** In 
 this way the Alexandrine translation continued to be an authentic 
 document in the hands of Christians, whilst the Jews were making 
 efforts to become possessed of purer translations wherewith to 
 oppose them. Thus there arose in the second century after Christ 
 the translations of Aquila and Theodotion, of whom Irenaeus 
 
 1 Tims in Justin Martyr, cobortatio ad Graec. c. 13, and most anomalously in 
 Epiplianius de ponder, et mens. c. 3, 6, 9—11. Comp. Eosenmiiller, loc. cit. p. 370, S. 
 
 2 So Irenaeus, adv. liaer. III., 25. Clemens Al., stromm. I., p. 312, ed. Potter u. a. 
 
 3 Praef. in Pentat.: nescio qnis primus auclor cellulas Alexandriae mendacio suo 
 exstruxerit etc. praef. in Paralip. : quae (72 celliilae) sine anctorejactantiir. 
 
 4 See passages ot'tbe Talmud in De Wette, p. 64 
 
 ^ Tt)u i^t'iyiia-tv Of E^))y?;<7ni'T0 ol ijiBofxriKOVTavfjitJov TrpetrjSvTipoi irapa TiTuXffxaiio 
 — ixii ilvai iv TitTLv «Xi/f);'}, dial. c. Trypli. c. 68. 
 
 ^ Comp. Zastraw, de Justiiii M. stud, bibl, I. p. 27, sq. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1307 
 
 makes first mention, cliaracterizing the autliois as Jews, and 
 apparently as contemporaries.^ The former produced a literally 
 verbatim translation of the Old Testament, so much so as to 
 make it absolutely unintelligible. By the Jews this production 
 was received with a decided welcome, and it was preferred by 
 them to the LXX.^ as much as it was odious to the Fathers.^ 
 Even Jerome, who in general treats this author with great 
 predilection as a " verborum Hebroeorum diligentissimus explorator" 
 (ep. 138 ad Marc.) reproaches him for his bigotry and controversial 
 leaning.^ Jerome also mentions a secondedition by Aquila.^ The 
 translation of Theodotion was freer, inasmuch as it professed to 
 be an editio castigata of the LXX.^ Whilst Justin Martyr in the 
 keenness of controversy with the Jews unhesitatingly preferred the 
 LXX. to the translation of Theodotion,^ the later Fathers, such as 
 Origen, were led to avail themselves of a revision of Theodotion, 
 for their own purposes ; and especially the book of Daniel thus 
 prepared obtained an universal introduction into the Church, for 
 which Jerome could not account on any of the grounds usually 
 leading to such a result. How much Origen prized the translation 
 of Theodotion is apparent from the use he made of it in the Hexapla 
 (see below). This also appears from the sayings of the later 
 Fathers, who make him now an Ebionite (licet eiim quidam dicant 
 Ebionitam. Hieron. praef comm. in Dan.), now a Marcionite. 
 (Epiphan.) That the Jews had received his work with particular 
 predilection, and had at a later period been followed in this by 
 Christians, as has recently been maintained,^ is quite inadmissible, 
 since everywhere mention is made of their predilection for Aquila 
 only, and scarcely would the Church go into this view. Theodotion's 
 
 1 Adv. haer. III., 24: At non ut qiiiilam ajunt, (jiii scripturam nunc audent ixtdsp- 
 fxt} 1/ tu s IV, perperam interpretari—si<.i(/— Theodotion Epbesius et Aquila Ponticus, 
 uterque Judaeus proselytus. Apocnpbal fables concerning botli in Epiphan. de pond. 
 et mens. c. 13, sq. 
 
 '^ Origeues, ep. ad Afric: (piXoTifxoTipov 'rrsTTKTTiv/jiivo^ irapd 'lovduiovs i)pfxr]vivKivai, 
 Tijv \pa<pr)v. 
 
 3 Corap. Iren. 1. cit. Euseb. ad. Ps. xc. 4, etc. 
 
 4 Hieron adEs. xlix. 5: De Aquila autem non miror, quod homo eruditissitnns linguae 
 Hebraicae in hoc loco aut simularit imperitiam, aut Pharisaeorum perversa interpretatione 
 deceptus sit. etc. 
 
 5 Ad Ezech. c 3: Aquilae secunda editio quam Hebraei kut' d/cpi/SEiai/ norainaut. s. 
 Eichhorn I., § 188. 
 
 ^ LXX. et Theodot. sicut in pluribus locis, ita et hoc qiioijne concordant. Hier. ad 
 Eocles. ii. 
 
 7 See my comment, on tlie book of Daniel, s. XLV. ff. 
 
 8 See E.von Lengerke, d. B. Daniel erl. s CVII. ff. 
 
 u 2 
 
308 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE 
 
 work seems to have been preferred partly because of its greater 
 harmony with the LXX., and partly because it could be adduced in 
 opposition to the Jews with greater advantage than the Alexandrine 
 translation, which they repudiated, without thereby yielding to 
 their views — especially since it was got up for this very purpose. 
 
 Already Irenaeus says that the Jew-Christians (Ebionites) had 
 made a special use of both the translations mentioned. With their 
 good knowledge of Hebrew,^ and their zeal for the Old Testament,^ 
 it much concerned them to be able, in controversy, to appeal with 
 more certainty to the ground-text of the Old Testament. Thus 
 there proceeded from them also a peculiar translation known by 
 the name of Symmachus. This translation was not yet known 
 to Irenaeus, and on this account may be regarded as of a later date 
 than the other two. Jerome was of opinion that the author had 
 made use of Theodotion (in Theodotiouis scita concedens torquere 
 posuitj ad Esai. Iviii. 6), and that the latter, for this reason, had 
 sometimes been taken for an Ebiouite.^ That Symmachus did 
 belong to the Ebionites is expressly stated by Eusebius'* and 
 Jerome, — also by Syrian authors.^ He allowed himself greater 
 liberties (non verbum e verbo, sed sensum ex sensu transtulit. 
 Hieron.), and seems to have been careful to produce a purer Greek 
 idiom, on which account his work was in this respect much 
 approved of (versio perspicua, manifesta, admirabilis, aperta.)^ 
 
 The other Greek translations known by tl^e names of Quinta, 
 Se.vta, Septima, whose authors were unknown even to Origen,^ 
 seem to have had tlie same object in view with those of an earlier 
 date, and only prove what strenuous efforts were put forth, from 
 controversial motives, for ascertaining and fixing the Hebrew text 
 
 1 'HftpaLK}]!/ Si. SidXiKTov aKpipu)i s'lcriv !)crKi]fjLivoi. Epipliau. adv. baer. 29, 7. 
 
 2 This is perhaps meant by the otherwise obscure expression of Irenaeus: quaecunque 
 prophetica erant, ceteris curiosius exponere nitchantur ; adv. haer. I., 36, (Creduer, iu 
 Winer's Zeitscbr. f. wisser.scb. Theol. I., 2, s. 223.) Comp. Hieroii. praef. in Esr. et 
 Nebem. : Graecorum studium et benevolentiarOjqui post LXX. translatores— Judaeos et 
 Hebionitas, legis veteris iuterpretes, Aquilam videlicet et Symni. et Tlieod., et curiase 
 legniit et per Origenis laborem, etc. 
 
 3 Comp. e.t/. Hieron. praef. iuJob: Judaeus Aq. et Symm. et Tbeod. Judaizautes 
 liaeretici, qui multa mysteria Salvatoris subdola interpretatioue celaruut. 
 
 4 Dein. ev. VII. 1 b. ecel. VI. 17. He also here mentions a commentary by tbe same 
 author on tbe Gospel of the Hebrews. Comp. Neander, K. Gesch. I. 3, p. 803. 
 
 6 S. Assemani, bibl. Orient. II. p. 278, III. I, p. 17. 
 
 '• Comp. Hody, 1. cit. p, 588. Thieme, de puritate Symmacbi. Lips. 1735, 4. 
 
 7 Editionts— auctoritatem sine nominibus interpretum cousecutns. Hierouynius 
 comment, ad Tit, c. 3. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 309 
 
 in the translation. The authors of these were also in all probahility 
 Jew-Christians — at least the author of the Sexto betrays himself 
 as such in Habak. iii. 13, i^rjXde^ rod aoicrai rov \a6v aov Sia 
 'Ir)(Tov rov Xpia-rov aov. This is also manifest from the testimony 
 of Jerome.^ All the translators do not seem to have translated 
 the whole of the Old Testament, and since their performances were 
 rather of a paraphrastic nature, they seem soon to have sunk into 
 oblivion.^ Hence probably the somewhat strange stories about 
 their having been discovered by Origen.^ 
 
 § 73. THE HEXAPLA OF ORIGEN. 
 
 Even in Philo we find passages of a corrupted text of the LXX., 
 which must be traced to negligence on the part of transcribers. 
 An old oversight of this kind is probably the rpa^eh instead of 
 racfieU (Gen. xv. 15) in Philo, Quis rer. div. haer. p. 519. A 
 difference had from this also arisen in the codices, as (Jerem. xv. 
 10) ouK axpelXtjaa ovSe ux^eiXr^ae [xe ovSeU, Philo de conf. ling. 
 p. 327 ; on which Origen remarks : hia-arj yap icmv rj ypacf^rj. 
 ^Ev fiev <yap rot? tfKeicnoi'i dvTLjpd<f)0t<i' cocjieXrjaa, ovSe dt^eXrjae 
 jxe ovhe\<i\ ev he rol^ dKpi^ecrTdroi<i koI av/xcfycovovai. TOt'i E^pai- 
 Koc<i, etc."* 
 
 The writings of Justin Martyr discover a still greater corruption 
 of the, text. He as yet is unacquainted with any translation of 
 the Old Testament besides the LXX. whose reading he frequently 
 defends from Jewish assaults. But the text of Justin is in many 
 instances a departure from the Alexandrine translation. He has 
 this peculiarity, that he keeps closer by the Hebrew original, and thus 
 not unfrequently harmonizes with the later Jewish translations ; but 
 
 1 Apol. c. Rufin. II. 34: .Judaico-s translatores, — which Eicbborii (I. s. 545, N. d.) 
 incoiTectly regards as an iudefiiute expression of Jerome. 
 
 2 See Euseb. h. eccl. VI. 16. 
 
 3 Comp. Epiphan. de pond, et mens. c. 17, init Euseb. 1. cit. und Hierou. praef. in 
 Grig, homil. in Cant. Cantic. 
 
 i Cf. Spohu Jer. vat. e vers. Jud. Alex, etc, I., p. 247.— Not always, however, is a 
 citation from Pliilo to be received as bis original reading, since his test has in many 
 cases been amended so as to correspond with later Greek translations. Comp. Wesseling 
 epist. de Aquilae in scriptis Fbilonis Jud. fragmentis, etc. Traj. ad Rhen. 1748, 
 Amersfoordt de vnriis lection. Holmes, dissert, p. 94, sq. 
 
ylO THE HISTORY Ob THE 
 
 often the text he followed is fouud now only in single manuscripts — 
 (to wit, in the cod, Alexandr. Cotton., Coislin.)^ This circumstance 
 must not be understood as if implying that Justin made use of the 
 translation of Tbeodotion or even of that of Symmachus ;^ the history 
 of these translations distinctly precludes this. All is sufficiently 
 explained so soon as we assume that Justin had before him a text of 
 the LXX. prepared by Jews, or more probably by Jew- Christians, since 
 even at that timeearnest controversy' seemsto have called forth efforts 
 for adapting the text more to the Hebrew original. The proceeding 
 of the Jew-Christians in reference to the New Testament text of 
 the Gospels perfectly justifies this assumption ; and in tbe case of 
 Justin we are all the more at liberty to presuppose such a text, 
 inasmuch as he seems to have been well acquainted with the Jew- 
 Christians, and to have been favourably disposed towards them.* 
 
 The confusion would increase when at a later period peculiar 
 translations were made, of which each sect, according to its 
 peculiar ity, availed itself — By this means the emendations in the 
 text of the LXX, with which a beginning had been made, were 
 only multiplied. 
 
 Thus, in the days of Origen, diversity in the MSS. of the LXX. 
 had become considerable.^ He himself traces this not merely to 
 neghgence on the part of copyists, but chiefly to a passion lor 
 amending, and to the audacity displayed by some in making these 
 emendations ; which quite agrees with what has been already said 
 about the corruption of the text. — This text was called kolvt), and 
 by the Latins accordingly editio vulgata, communis,^ an expression 
 borrowed from the Alexandrian Critics who thus designated the 
 older unrevised text of Homer as it was before the introduction 
 of grammatical BLop6coaet<iJ 
 
 Origen had frequent opportunities of experiencing tbe embar- 
 
 1 S. Amersfoordt, I. cit. p. 95, sqq. 
 
 2 As Stroth will have it, in Repertor. II., s. 76, ff. 
 
 3 Besides the dial. c. Tryph. we know of avriXoyia TlaTrla-Kov kuI 'laa-ovoi, written 
 under Hadrian, — also an Apology against Judaism. S. Gieseler, K. G. I., S. 159. 
 
 * Comp. Credner, Beitrage z. Eiul. in die bibl. Schr. I., s. 96, ff. 
 
 5 Ni/i/t di Sj^Xovoti TToWi] yiyovtv ?'; twv avTiyfjdtpoov Sia<pop<i. conim. ill Matth. 
 torn. XV. opp. Ill , p. 671, ed. de la Rue. 
 
 6 Editionem, quain Origenes et Cuesarieusis Eusebius omnesque Graeciae tractatores 
 Koiv>)v i e. contmurKM appellant atque vnlgatam. Hierou. epist. CVJ. ad Sniiniam et 
 Fretelam. 
 
 7 S.Tlug, Eiul. ind. N. T. 1., §22. 
 
, INTERPRETATION OF THK, OLD TESTAMENT. 811 
 
 rassment arising in polemics from this difference ; he accordingly 
 undertook the execution of a Siopdcocri^ of the Alexandrine text in 
 the work entitled the Hexapla, which occupied him for many years.^ 
 His object was to place in a clear hght the distinction between the 
 Jewish and Christian texts •} the nature of his work was therefore 
 not critical, but rather exegetical and polemical, and it was intended 
 to aid the defence of Christianity against Judaism. Tt did not 
 come within the scope of this undertaking to restore a critically 
 amended text of the LXX., by a collation of manuscripts ; it seemed 
 more in keeping with the object in view, by a collocation of the 
 various versions with the original, to make the difference self- 
 evident. These were therefore arranged in columns by Origen ; 
 see on this attempt Jerome, comm. ad. Tit. c 3. First came the 
 Hebrew in the original text ; then followed the same text written 
 in Greek characters, for the sake of correct pronunciation. Origen 
 himself possessed a number of Hebrew manuscripts, which he had 
 obtained during his journeys, (Euseb. h. e. VI. 10,) and he probably 
 besides availed himself of the assistance of his Jewish teacher, 
 Huilus.^ Then followed Aquila as most closely allied to the He- 
 brew text ; then Symmachus, the LXX., Theodotion ; to these were 
 appended in the case of particular books the Quinta, etc. The 
 position of the LXX. betwixt Symmachus and Theodotion probably 
 arose from the fact of Symmachus being more nearly allied to the 
 Hebrew text, than the LXX. ; so that the degree in which they differed 
 from the original determined the order of their arrangement. The 
 work of Theodotion followed theLXX.becauseit had a leaning to this 
 translation ; the rest were probably similar correctoria of the LXX.^ 
 Origen could not venture to alter the text itself according to the 
 other translations without offending his jealous contemporaries.^ 
 Certainly the text of the LXX. had for its basis that of very 
 good codices ; on which account Jerome calls it editio incorrupta 
 et immaculata (s. Hody, p. 010, sq.) ; but besides this Origen 
 availed himself of the critical signs used by the grammarians in 
 revising the text of the classics. Among them Aristarchus is 
 
 1 The time cannot be accurately Jetenniued ; see Ue Wette, Einl. s. 7:}. 
 
 2 'YTTtp Tou yui; XavQaviiv ijfxa^ rnv diatpopav twv ira^a 'lovSaioLi Kut hfuv uvtl- 
 ypudwi/. Epist. ad Jul. Afiican, 
 
 3 See Hody, 1. cit. p. 289. 
 
 ; Otherwise F.piphauius, but certainly not correctly. Comp. Hody. p. fi04. 
 5 Oi) To\ ixr'ia avTi^ ai'.rn TraiyTi) ■ntpuXtiv, etc., Comm. in iMaltli. i. 1. 
 
312 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 earned as the first who made use of the Ohelos in the songs of 
 Horner.^ The use of these signs was especially augmented by the 
 Platonists, who by this means marked their observations on the text 
 of Plato.^ Origen followed the latter — a proceeding all the more 
 likely on his part, when the history of his education is taken into 
 account; but he so applied and modified these signs as best to 
 subserve his purposes. In the case even of the grammarians, there 
 was diversity in the use they made of them." Origen employed the 
 Ohelos (Obeliscus) to denote what was in the LXX. and awanting 
 in the Hebrew, which he ascertained by means of the more faithful 
 translations {Kpnr^piw 'x^prja-d/xevot Tai<; Xonral^ eKhoaecnv), making 
 in this case an especial use of Theodotion on account of his close 
 alliance with the I.XX. (quod majoris audaciae est in editione 
 LXX., Theodotionis editionem miscuit. Hieron. praef, I. in 
 Paralip. and other passages.) The Astericus* was employed to 
 supply what was awanting according to the same method. Besides 
 these the Hexapla contained lemnisci and hypolemnisci, — rare and 
 more superfluous means of denoting other modes of rendering that 
 harmonized with the meaning of the text or not.^ 
 
 This was the arrangement of the work which by the ancients 
 was named the Hexapla or Octapla, according to the various 
 modes of numbering the columns. It has been questioned if 
 Origen besides this work, wrote another, under the name of Tetrapla. 
 The existence of an independent work by Origen called the Tetrapla 
 ought certainly, on the one hand, never to have been doubted : this 
 
 1 S. Wolf, Prolegg., p. CCLII., sqq. 
 
 2 Stj/xeio Tiva Toii /3t/3\iois irapaTidEVTaL. Diogen. Laert. III. 39, There were 
 particular works irtpl rwv kv rol^ (BipXioti amuLtiuiv, but they have been lost, so that 
 we are confiDed to the extracts in Diog. Laert. and Isidor. Origg. I. 20. Comp. Casau- 
 bonus ad Diog. L. 1. cit. 
 
 3 Td o'tjfxela irapa Tols TTuitiTals dWoi's aWcos KeiTai, says the grammarian 
 Hephastiou. 
 
 4 Apponitur in iis locis,quae omissasunt, ut illucescant (whence the name) per earn 
 notam quae deesse videntur. Isidor. 1. cit. Hence with the Platonists : 'Ao-Tfp. tt/oos 
 Ttji' (rv/xcfxxii/iav twv ooy/xaTwv, Diog. L. 1. cit. 
 
 5 Lemniscus apponitur iis locis, quae S. Scripturae interpretes eodura sensu, sed 
 diversis sermonibus transtulerunt Hypol. ("antigraphus^ — ubi in translntionibus diversus 
 stuisus habetur. Isidor 1. cit. witli which Epiphanius exactly agrees. Comp. Hody 
 p. 140, sq. Also the use ot the Lemnisci iu the cod. Chis. of the LXX. (in Daniel) 
 agrees with this, see the praef. of the Roman Edit. § V. Montfaucon (praelira, ad 
 Hex. IV. 4), and others therefore incorrectly advocate another use of these signs. 
 Probably tlje o/SeAos TTEpito-Tty/xEVos of the Platonists (see Diog. Laert. I. cit,) was in 
 Origen superpeded by the lemniscus, as even Casaubonus supposes. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 318 
 
 is sufficiently evident from Eusebius^ and other witnesses.^ On 
 the other hand to have regarded the Tetrapla as a work altogether 
 diflFerent in respect to internal construction, and design, was an 
 error in the opposite direclion, since, according to Eusebius, and 
 all the other Fathers, it differed from the Hexapla only in the 
 number of its columns and in its size. It is quite natural to 
 suppose that Origen in the progress of his work at first issued a 
 less comprehensive work, and enlarged it at a later period. This is 
 confirmed by the well-known notices occurring in his life, of new 
 discoveries which be made whilst engaged in his work. 
 
 Origen's work, the Hexapla, passed, after his death, into the 
 library of Pamphilus at Cesarea. The latter, with the assistance of 
 his friend Eusebius, published the text of the LXX. as presented in 
 this work, and the codices so issued were received with decided 
 favour, especially by the churches of Palestine.^ And since they 
 were furnished not merely with the critical signs of Origen, but also 
 with the scholia and glosses of other translations, the foundation 
 was laid for the introduction of a new corruption of the text. 
 
 The best edition of the Hexapla, according to the fragments 
 preserved by Montfaucon II. voU. fol. is the edition by Bahrdt 
 2 voll. 8. For particulars regarding the Literature see in Rosen- 
 miiller's Handb. II. p. 459, etc. An individual attempt to restore 
 the text of the Hexapla is the Jereraias by Spohn. 
 
 § 74. HISTORY OF THE LXX. AFTER ORIGEN. 
 
 About the same time that Origen undertook the revision of the 
 LXX., a similar need was felt in other churches ; and, as it appears, 
 quite independent of Origen,^ a fresh revision of the LXX. was 
 instituted in Antioch by the Presbyter Lucianus (died 312) who in 
 this case made use of the Hebrew text and of the other translations, 
 
 1 Though oue may read here tTrto-KEunaav or ETrifcaTao-icEuacras, still the iSiw^, 
 seorsim decides for us. 
 
 2 Quoted by Hody, p. 595, sq. 
 
 3 Mediae inter has provinciae Palestinos codices legunt quos ab Origine elaborates 
 Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt. Hierou. praef. I. ad Paralip. 
 
 * For it does not appear that the critical sigus of Origen were used by Lucian and 
 
 Hesychius. The passage of Jerome, ep. 74, ad Augustinum, refers only to the copies of 
 
 tlie Hexaplaric text, and tesiifie.s of its wide circulation. 
 
 1 
 
y 14 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 but according to more credible accounts,^ only of the first. Of the 
 edition following this revision many copies were published, and 
 were very favourably received in Syria and Asia Minor.^ Accord- 
 ingly they were called vulgata, or Lukianos,^ and the so revised 
 manuscripts Lucianea.* 
 
 In like manner Hesychius in Egypt prepared an edition of the 
 LXX., which there gained general respect.^ Meanwhile, from the 
 circumstance of Jerome placing this edition on a par with those of 
 Origen and Lucian, it may be concluded generally, that its design 
 was also a better fixing of the Alexandrine text. The nature and 
 mode of its execution is to us entirely unknown. 
 
 Three different editions of the text of the LXX. had thus been 
 made in three large ecclesiastical districts : totus orbis, says 
 Jerome, has inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. But none of the 
 manuscripts issued in consequence remained uninfluenced by other 
 editions, and as the various translations, even by what Origen had 
 done, necessarily tended to the corruption of the text, this was only 
 increased by the variety of these editions. Accordingly Jerome, 
 who was all the more competent to express an opinion on the 
 subject, because he knew the original Hexapla from having himself 
 seen it, says : nunc vero quum pro varietate regionum diversa 
 lerantur exemplaria et gei-mana ilia antiquaque trauslatio corrupta 
 sit atque violata, etc. — The majority of the Christian Fathers were 
 satisfied with the Hexaplaric text issued by Eusebius, without being 
 concerned, as Jerome was, for the Original, from which alone the 
 true meaning of the text could be determined. Only a few, such 
 as Basil the Great, seem to have been anxious for more careful 
 revisions of the codices.^ The size of the large work of Origen 
 prevented its being transcribed ; of this there are nowhere any 
 
 1 Theformer is found ?</. inthe synopsis in Atlianaiii opp. t TI ; the latter iu Suidas 
 B. voce. AovKinvo's and voOaia, according to Simeon Metaplirasta. 
 
 ^ Constantinopolis usque ad Antiocbiani Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat Hier. 
 praef. I. in Paral., adv. IHuffin. II., 26. 
 
 3 Vulgatam— quae a plerisque nunc Lucianus dicitur. Hier. pp. 106, ad Sunninin et 
 Fretelam. Tlie Hexaplaric text was so named likewise, on account of its reception in 
 Palestine: ut omnes bibliothecas impleverit et vnlgata dicta sit. Praef in Jes. 
 
 * Lucianus, vir disertissimus — tantura in scripturarum studio laboravit, ut usque 
 nunc quaedam exemplaria ScripturaruTU Lucianea nuncupentur. Hier.de vir. iliustr. 77. 
 
 ^ Alexandria et Aegyptu'» in LXX. suis Hesycbinm lauiiat auctorem. Praef I. in 
 Paralip. 
 
 •^ Coiiip. Synrelli, Cbrouot;r. p. 203. 
 
INTERPREl'ATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 315 
 
 traces, and it seems to have fallen a prey to the Mahommedan 
 invasion of Palestine in the seventh century. 
 
 Our present manuscripts have proceeded from the text thus 
 corrupted. In consequence of this, and because the diversified 
 Wending of texts necessarily resulted in a constant variation of the 
 manuscripts, it has hitherto not been possible to classify the codices 
 of the LXX. according to their various derivations. — Besides the 
 number of codices compared before Holmes was too small to allow 
 of a positive conclusion concerning their united character being 
 come to. Even the deviations of the two most celebrated and 
 ancient codices — the Vatican and the Alexandrine — have not yet 
 by any means, so far as their relation to each other is concerned, 
 been satisfactorily explained — a departure from or an approach to 
 the Hexaplaric text being taken as the only criterion, though not 
 applicable throughout. If with Holmes it is in this case, besides, 
 proposed to distinguish between the Tetraplaric, Hexaplaric, 
 Hesychianic, and Lucianic recensions, the scheme is absolutely 
 impracticable, and must rest on arbitrary assumptions as to the 
 nature of these recensions.^ 
 
 The editions published up to the present time do not clearly 
 exhibit the manuscript texts, but have, in part, been executed 
 on very arbitrary principles. The first edition of the LXX., as 
 published in the Complutensian Polyglott in the year 151G, is 
 certainly unknown as regards the codices from which it has 
 proceeded ; but it has not, as some have conjectured, been altered 
 from the Hebrew original. The readings are in part peculiar, 
 varying from those of the Alexandrine and Vatican codices, and 
 since it frequently receives confirmation from the Hexaplar Syriac 
 [6 Xvpo'i, Tk.], the edition in question seems to have proceeded 
 from one of the Hexaplaric recensions.^ — This text afterwards 
 passed into the Polyglotts of Antwerp and Paris. 
 
 The edition of Aldus Manutius (Aldina) of 1518 is taken from 
 old manuscripts, but is thought to be. interpolated. From it 
 have issued the editions of Strasburg (1626), of Basle (1545), of 
 Frankfort (1597), and other editions. 
 
 The Sixtine Edition, Rome 1587, has for its basis the Codex of 
 
 1 Comp. Amersfoovdl, 1. oit. p. 105, sqq. 
 
 'i Notwithslanrling this, mucla respecting its origin still remains obscure; s. S[:o!iii, 
 Jcreuj. vat. 1, j), 43. 
 
3 1 (J HISTORY OF THE 
 
 the Vatican, but has, where the manuscript is defective (as in the 
 beginning of the Pentateuch as far as Genesis xlvii.), partly had 
 these deficiencies supplied from other sources, and has partly been 
 altered in other respects. — This text has been received into the 
 London Polyglott, and is followed by the editions of London 1653 
 (with many alterations) ; of Amst. 1685 ; of Lips. 1697. The 
 Roman edition is also followed by that of Lamb. Bos, Franeq. 
 1709, with various readings, and very convenient as a manual ; so 
 also the newest edition of L. van Ess, Lips. 1824. 
 
 Grabe followed the Alexandrine Codex^ in preparing his splendidly 
 printed edition, Oxford 1707; but he adopted alterations from 
 codices and from conjecture. The more exact edition of Breitinger, 
 Zurich 1730, ff., followed this. 
 
 A really critical edition, important because of the collation of 
 many manuscripts, and the apphcation of other aids in criticism, 
 is the English edition begun by Holmes (1798), and completed 
 by Parsons (1827). Comp. the diss, cited by Amersfoordt and 
 Gesenius, loc. cit. No. 1.^ 
 
 The Alexandrine translation of Daniel discovered in the Codex 
 Chisianus in Eome, appeared at first in Rome in 1772, and was at 
 a later period edited by J. D. Michaelis and Segaar.^ 
 
 § 75. DAUGHTER-VERSIONS OF THE LXX. 
 1. THE ITALA. 
 
 In the west a respect for the LXX. was universally prevalent, 
 and the most influential Fathers regarded this as the only authentic 
 translation of the original text ;* so much was this the case that an 
 adherence to this translation came to be regarded as a mark of 
 orthodoxy.^ Augustine, as is known, sought to defend even' the 
 
 1 The fac simile of tbis was published in England by Mr. H. Baber, T. I., 1823. Comp. 
 Gesenius, Hall. L. Z. 1832. No. 2, s. 11, ff. 
 
 2 Concerning the literature generally, comp. Eosenmiiller, Handb. II., s, 279, ff. 
 
 3 Comp. my Commentary on the Book of Daniel, s. XLV., ff, 
 
 ■t Comp. TertuIIiau de praescript. haeret. c. 36. Hilarius comment, in Pss. 2, US, 5. 
 
 5 Comp. Philastrius, haer. catal. c. 93, 9i: sunt haeretici, qui Theodotionis et 
 Symmachi itidem iuterpretationeni diverse mode expositam sequuutur, uon illorum 
 licatissimorum prioriim, quam ecclesin oatholica oolit et praedicat. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 317 
 
 inspiration of the authors of this translation.^ The LXX. being 
 used for religious purposes, Latin translations of it were at an early 
 period found to be necessary,^ and these followed the ground-text 
 as closely as possible. Augustine mentions them frequently, and 
 to all of them, he prefers the Itala, — so named by the Fathers of 
 the African Church, because their knowledge concerning it, in 
 so far as made use of in the Church, was derived from Italy.^ 
 According to Augustine this translation was marked by great 
 literality and perspicuity ; and it originated with the earliest times 
 of Christianity.* It was made from the Koivrj of the LXX., 
 and hence by Jerome it is named : usitata, vulgata, communis 
 (also vetus). In the Fathers it is extant only in a few fragments; 
 but on account of the variations of their citations, it can no longer 
 be exactly determined which translation really belongs to the Itala.* 
 These may be further increased by a collation of the older juridical 
 works, of which a beginning has been made by Miinter.*' 
 
 In the time of Jerome, these Latin translations had become still 
 more corrupted and divergent than was the LXX. before Origen. 
 Quum apnd Latinos, says Jerome, praef. in Josuam, tot sint 
 exemplaria quot codices, et unusquisque pro suo arbitrio vel 
 addiderit vel subtraxerit, quod ei visum est, etc." Jerome, whilst 
 still at Home (383), at first corrected the Psalter (Psalterium 
 Romanum), but only cursorily (cursim) ; afterwards with more 
 pains-taking, according to the Hexapla of Origen in Palestine, the 
 Psalterium Gallicanum, which was introduced into the Gallican 
 
 1 Comp. Clausen, Augustinus, S. S. interpr., p. 71, sq. 
 
 2 For the fact that there existed several trauslations, see Jahn, Einl. I, s. 216, ff. 
 
 3 Comp. de doctr. Clirist. II., 15, with c. Faust. IX.. 2. Against the conjectures of 
 lUa and tisitata instead of Itala, see Hug. Einl. I. § 115. 
 
 * See De Wette, Einl. s. 77. 
 
 5 The fragments are collected by P. Sabatier, bibl. saer. latt. verss. antiq. etc. Remis. 
 1713. T. I.— III. Comp. Rosenmiiller, Haudb , b. s. 175, ff. 
 
 6 S. Miscellanea Hafuieusia t. II., p. 89, sqq., besides which something fiirtlier may 
 be gleaned from more recent works, — especially from the Corpus juris Romani 
 Antejustiniani. Edd. Bockiu^', BethmannlloUweg, Pugge. Fascic. I. Bonn. 1835, 4. — 
 As far as age is concerned (Holmes praef. ad ed. LXX. c. 4.), the Sclavonian translation 
 has also been made from the Itala — (but it was subsequently altered according to Greek 
 manuscripts) —a view which seems best to harmonize with the (certainly confused) 
 history of the conversions of the Sclavonians ; s. Gieseler, K. G. II., 1, § 38, 
 
 7 An example of such a corruption is found in the codex VVirceburgensis, from which 
 Miinter, 1. cit. p. 112, sq., has communicated portions of the Itala. He concludes, that it 
 has originated in Africa, since it wants both the literalness and elegance so celebrated in 
 the case of the Fathers. 
 
r.18 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 Churches.^ Of the other books of the Old Testament he besides 
 pubhshed, also corrected in this way, Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, 
 Song of Solomon, Proverbs, and Job, to each of which books, we, 
 on this account, have two prefaces by Jerome.^ This translation 
 for the most part follows the Vatican text of the LXX. as this 
 approaches nearest to the KOLvrj ; on this account, and because of 
 its literal style, it is highly serviceable as an aid in restoring the 
 more ancient reading of the Alexandrine translation.^ 
 
 § 7 6. (2.) SYRIAC VERSION FROM THE GREEK. 
 
 Until the sixth century, the version universally used by the 
 Syrians for ecclesiastical purposes, was exclusively the Peschito, a 
 translation from the Hebrew. Ephraem Syrus certainly makes 
 
 frequent mention of a Greek version (U»JQ-i), and many have 
 from tl)is concluded'* that he had made use of a peculiar translation of 
 the LXX. But Ephraem certainly was acquainted only with the 
 Peschito.^ As little may we assume what has been advanced as 
 explanatory of the fact just noticed, that this Father had availed 
 himself of the original LXX. ; because he was unquestionably not 
 acquainted with the Greek language.^ The nature of those references 
 rather leads us to believe that Ephraem had before him a text of 
 tlie Peschito furnished with several glosses both from the Hebrew 
 original and the Greek translations.^ 
 
 The first circumstance which led to a translation from the 
 Greek, was the formal separation which took place between the 
 Monophysites and the Nestorians. The necessity for a new, 
 independent, and at the same time, verbatim translation was only 
 
 1 S. Engelstoft; Hier. Stridon. etc., § 24. 
 
 2 Comp. Hody, 1. cit. p. 352, sq. Jahu, I., s. 220, ff. De Wette, s. 79, 80. — Editions 
 of the Psalt. Rom. and Gallic, s. in Rosenmiiller loc. cit. p. 189, ff. 
 
 3 S. Gesenius, Comment, on Jes. I., s. 98. 
 
 * According to tbe example of Assemani, bibl. Orient. III. 1, p. 76, ell. I., p. 71. 
 
 5 Comp. Wiseman, bor. Syr. I., p. 107, sq., von Lengerke comment, crit. de. Ejibr. s. 
 p. 29, sq. 
 
 6 S. Assem. I., p. 48, not., and tbe weighty reasons of von Lengerke, comment, crit. 
 p. 4, sqq. 
 
 7 Comp. Credner, de propbet. rain, vei's. Syr. p. 48, sq., v. Lengerko, I. cit. p. 10, sq., 
 Rodiger, in der Hall. Lit. Zt. 1832. Nr. 6, s. 43, ff. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 319 
 
 then felt by the former. — Thus arose the Philoxenian translation 
 of the New Testament made in the beginning of the sixth century.^ 
 Of the Old Testament a translation of the Psalms made at the 
 instance of Philoxenus (Xenajas) is also cited. Moses of Aghel 
 in Mesopotamia, an author of the middle of the sixth century, 
 reports that the Bishop Polycarp had translated the Psalms and 
 the New Testament from the Greek. ^ — Further, it is supposed that 
 there is a translation of Isaiah by Philoxenus in the Codex Ambros. 
 of the Syro-Hexaplaric translation. (Eichhorn Rep. 3, s. 175.) 
 But since the important testimony of Moses of Aghel mentions 
 only the translation of the Psalms, this probably is a part of 
 Philoxenus' work : Commeutarius in S. S.^ 
 
 In the seventh century Thomas of Charkel (Heraclea) was 
 engaged in a revision of the Philoxenian text of the New Testament, 
 and contemporaneously with him, Paul of Tela"* was making a 
 translation of the Old Testament from the Hexaplaric text.^ This 
 translation was made according to an accurate text, as the postscripts 
 in the codices shew f and consequently is of material service as a 
 means of restoring the Hexaplaric text. The friendly relations 
 and particular bond of union at that time existing between the 
 Monophysites and Alexandria,^ were chiefly instrumental in bringing 
 about such a translation from the text received from the Greeks. 
 Hence not only was the Mecensio Harcleiisis executed in Alexandria, 
 but Paul of Tela also wrote his translation during his stay there, 
 at the time of the Monophysite Patriarch Athanasius (in the year 
 617.) 
 
 1 S. Hug, Einl. I., % 70. 71. 
 
 2 Assemani, II., p. 83.— The Psalms were translated first, because they were chiefly 
 devoted to liturgical purposes; comp. e.g. the Rituale Syr. in Knoes, chr. Syr. p 55, sq 
 Hence there was a translation ot them also by Abbot Simeon, if the statement of Asse- 
 mani, II., p. 83. (comp. with this I., p. 612) be correct, which according to the latter 
 passage would seem doubtful. 
 
 TV ..I 7 ..up 7 O .X 
 
 3 |-»Ji.i:D joZ.2 5 |n.«aiD, Assem. I., p. 23. The "InjQjD signifies Com- 
 mentary as well as Traiislutio)i, see Wiseman, bor., p. 156, not. 
 
 4 Concerning the locality, see Ddpke, ad Micbaelis, chr. Syr., p. 143. 
 
 See the Locus classicus of Barliebraeus, in prooem. ad horreum mysteriorum in 
 Wiseman, p. 87, 88, and Bernstein, chr. Syr. I., p. 145, (the former according to the 
 cod. Vatic, the latter according to the cod. Bodleiamus.) 
 
 C Comp. Bruns, in the Repertor. III., s. 186, VIII.,s . 96. 
 
 7 S. Renaudot, bistor. patriarch. Jacobit., p 152. 
 
 8 Thus according to the Postscript of the Parisian codex. S. Eichhorn, in the 
 R.'pert. VII., s. 226, Bruns, Rep. VIII., s. 86. 
 
320 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 The work of Paul embraced the whole of the Old Testament, 
 including the Apocrypha, as the manuscript memorials of it (see 
 below) shew. There was not a Recensio Harclensis or even a 
 translation of the Old Testament by Thomas of Charkel. This is 
 apparent from the passage of Barhebraeus already noticed, who 
 nowhere cites the Harcleian recension in the case of the Old Testa- 
 ment.^ The Apocryphal books seem, however, to have been executed 
 by Thomas. Pococke found in some MSS. a Syrian translation 
 of the history of Susannah, marked with "jAjiiJDt.^ "jlorjLD, versio 
 Heracleensis,^ and this has been edited by Walton in the London 
 Polyglott (vol. iv.) From this it has become apparent that this 
 was a free repetition of the version of Theodotion, a similar work 
 having existed probably at a somewhat earlier period, which also 
 has been inserted in the London Polyglott.^ The object of this 
 work was to remove the difficulties of the history, and by a more 
 pleasing representation of facts, to render it more intelligible and 
 credible ; on which account it is very properly called a translation, 
 (lAnoLo), not a recension (looZ.), as the New Testament is.* 
 That this work proceeded from Thomas is all the more probable 
 when the free style of his execution, as it appears in the New 
 Testament, is compared,^ and when it is considered how, besides 
 this, the style of his work, as respects the choice of the critical 
 signs of Origen, was related to that of Paul ;^ whence it might 
 easily occur to him to revise anew the Apocrypha as existing 
 among the Greeks in various forms. 
 
 With this Syro-Hexaplaric translation is identical the one 
 mentioned by Barhebraeus or Abulphradsch in the Histor. dynast, 
 p. 100, ed. Pococke, which some — overlooking the correct reading, 
 already noticed by Pococke in the Addenda,^ — have incorrectly 
 
 1 Harclensis, — imllibi prorsus in Veteri T. a Barhebreao citatur. Wiseman, p. 204, 
 not. comp. Rhode, Gregor. Barhebr. in Ps. ^ . et XVIII. p. 19. For tbis speaks also 
 tbe Cod. Vatic. Nr. 153 (in Assemani, II. p. 499), containing the KaAapb edition, in 
 which tbe Old Testament is furnished with glosses from the LXX., tbe New Testament 
 from the Harcleian edition. Wiseman, p. 178. 
 
 2 Comp. Pok, praef. in Joel. fol. 6. 
 
 3 S. Eicbhorn, Einl. in die Apokrypb. s 478, ff. 
 * Comp. Adler, verss. Syr. p. 63, sq. 
 
 5 See concerning this tbe important communications in Wiseman, p. 178, sq. Also 
 comp. Hug, Einl. I. § 75. 
 
 C Comp. Adler, 1. cit, p. 50, 51. 
 
 7 The passage occurs also in Pokocke Spec. Hist. Ar. p. 184, and here, as also in the 
 new edition by White, it follows the incorrect reading. The reading confiimed by 
 
INTRRPRF.TATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 821 
 
 taken for some particular translation named Fif/iirata. The 
 passage speaks of two translations as used by the western Syrians, 
 — the Peschito, as the earlier production, and a later work which 
 proceeded from the LXX. With this passage we may very properly 
 combine the testimony of the Monophysite Moses Bar Cepha of the 
 tenth century, who, in like manner, speaks of these two translations 
 only : " Syriace vero redditum altera quidem interpretatione ex 
 ipso Hebraeo, altera vero ex Graeco " (in Assemani II. p. 130.) 
 
 Since, as we have above shewn, there existed among the 
 Monophysites, already in the beginning of the sixth century, a • 
 portion of the Old Testament (the Psalms) translated into Syriac, 
 this circumstance seems so to have influenced the Nestorians, that 
 they also thought of a translation from the Greek. Such a 
 translation is said to have been prepared by the Patriarch Mar 
 Abba^ (died 552.) But this translation seems never to have 
 acquired the sanction of the Church, partly because the Peschito 
 was too highly esteemed by the Nestorians,^ and partly because 
 Mar Abba himself — who is supposed, at an earlier period, to have 
 been a Magian^ — was personally obnoxious to the Syrians, and 
 his orthodoxy doubtful.* 
 
 In the beginning of the eighth century lived Jacob of Edessa, 
 an eminent expounder of Scripture among the Syrians. It has 
 been incorrectly supposed^ that he was the author of some particular 
 translation of the Old Testament. From the fragments that have 
 been communicated to us by de Sacy (Eichhorn, Allg. Bibl. viii., s. 
 57) , ff.), and Bugati in his edition of the Syrohexaplaric version of 
 Daniel (see Eichh. Allg. Bibl. ii., s. 270, ff.), and which are 
 known from the Scholia of Barbebraeus, it appears that his work 
 consisted of a new edition prepared from the Syrohexaplaric text 
 
 manuscripts as the correct one is found in Abraham Ecchellensis Ebedjesu catalogus, 
 etc. (Rom. 1653), p. "240. It is defended by Renaudot, perpetuite de la foi, etc. t. V. p. 
 554, de Sacy (in Eicliliorn's Allg. Bibl. Vlll. s. 588) ; comp. Jabn, Vorr. z. Einl. II. s. 
 VI. ff. Wiseman, 1. cit. p. 93. Geseuius, ball. Lit. Z. 1832. Nr. 1, s. 8. 
 
 1 Thus Barbebraeus in Assemani III., 1, p. 75, and Ebedjesu, ibid. 
 
 - Comp. Wiseman, p. 107, sq. 
 
 3 Comp. Frabn, z. Ibu. Fozlan, s. 136, tf. 
 
 ■1 Comp. the narrations concerning him in Assemani II., p. 411. This translation is 
 in no way identical with the Philoxenianic, as Bruus, Rep. VIII., s. 93, would have it; 
 both respectively belong to parties entirely different from, and quite opposed to each 
 other. 
 
 5 So Assemani, I., p. 493. 
 
 X 
 
322 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 and the Pescliito conjointly.^ Being a Monophysite,'^ his object 
 seems to have been to furnish the rehgious party to which he 
 belonged with a purer and more intelligible text of the Hexaplaric 
 translation received by them. 
 
 In the year 148G, Hareth Ben Senan prepared an Arabic 
 translation from the Hexaplaric version, of which there are extant 
 two manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, and one in the Medicean. 
 The critical signs of Origen are retained in it. Very little of it has 
 hitherto been printed.^ 
 
 The following is known concerning manuscripts of the Syro- 
 hexaplaric translation : (a) The manuscript which Masius possessed, 
 containing a part of Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Euth, the 
 Books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Judith, and a portion of 
 Tobit. This codex has, however, since disappeared, and we have 
 remaining only the (Latin) extracts of Masius in his commentary 
 on the book of Joshua, (b) The codex Ambrosianus in Milan* 
 contains the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, 
 Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the twelve minor prophets, Jeremiah, 
 Baruch, Lamentations, Daniel, witli the Apocryphal additions, 
 Ezekiel, Isaiah. Erom it, Jeremiah and Ezekiel have been edited 
 by Norberg (Londini Gothorum, 1787, 4), but scantily furnished 
 and not without mistakes f Daniel by Bugati (Mediolani, 1788, i), 
 correct, and furnished with learned annotations ; Job (Curae 
 Hexaplares in Jobum — scripsit H. Middeldorpf. Vratislav., 1817. 
 4) ; Psalms (by Bugati, Mediolani, 1820, comp. besides Pliischko, 
 da Psalterii Syriaci Mediolanensis — peculiar! indole ejusdemque 
 usu critico. Bonnae, 1835, 8.) (c) The codex Paris., which 
 contains only the fourth book of Kings, whence communications 
 were made by Bruns (comp. Rep. IX., s. 157, ff., X., s. 58, ff.) ; 
 comp. Hasse, libri IV. regum Syro-Hexaplaris. spec, e Ms, Paris. 
 Syr. ed. etc. Jenae, 1782, 8. The work of Middeldorpf, codex 
 
 1 Comp. von Lengerke, commeiit. crit. de EpL. s. p. 19, sq., not. Rhode, 1. cit. p. 70, 
 76. Comp. also Eicliborn, Einl. II., s. 159, flF. 
 
 2 See concerning this Assemani, II., p. 337. 
 
 3 Comp. Hottinger, Tlies. pbilol. p. 247, sq. Paulus, Comment crit. exhibeus e bibl. 
 Oxon. Bodlej. specimina verss. Pentat. septein Arabb. p. 70, s-q. Eicbborn, Einl. II., 
 s. 293, ff. Sobnurrer in Holmes, praef. ad. LXX. ed. I., c. 4. 
 
 * See concerning this, Adler, Uebers. einer bibl. Krit. Reise, etc., s. 191, ff. 
 5 Comp. Bugati, in den annal. litter. Helmstad. 1787, I., p. 289, sq., and Daniel 
 secundum LXX. interpr. etc., p. 164, sq. 
 
INTREPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. S'23 
 
 Syriaco-Hexaplaris lib. IV. B.egg. e cod. Paris., Jes., XII. proph. 
 min., Prow., Job., Cant., Tbreni, Eccles. e cod. Mediolan. ed. et 
 coram, illustr. Midd. Tom. I. Berol., 1835, 4, has appeared 
 but very recently. — (I have not as yet been able to examine 
 this important work minutely.) — Of importance in connection 
 with this subject are the Scholia of Barbebraeus to the Old 
 Testament, in which he frequently quotes the Syro-Hexaplaric 
 translation. Comp. for the Literature of this subject Rhode, 1. 
 cit,, p. 6, et p. 16, sq. 
 
 § 77. (3.) — OTHER VERSIONS DERIVED FROM THE LXX. 
 
 (1.) The EtMopic translation. Along with the spread of 
 Christianity among the Ethiopians in the fourth century,^ the 
 translation of the Bible seems also to have been extended to them. 
 The oldest testimony on the subject is given by Chrysostom, who 
 says, that the Ethiopians, besides the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, 
 Persians, and many other nations, were in possession of the 
 Scriptures translated into their respective languages (hom. II. in 
 Johann.) De auctore et tempore versionis nihil certi compertum 
 habemus — says I-udolf;^ — probabile tamen est, eam tempore 
 conversionis Habessinorum vel paullo post, non vero tempore 
 Apostolorum, ut quidam tradiderunt, concinnatam fuisse et quidem 
 a diversis interpretibus ; quia vocabula rariora et difficiliora, ut sunt 
 gemmarum nomina, non uuo modo in diversis libris exponuntur. 
 This translation is written in the old sacred Geez-language, and 
 though the production of Christians, is likewise used by the Ethiopian 
 Jews (Fellaschas). It unquestionably follows the Alexandrine 
 translation, as Ludolf has supposed ; and neither the supposition of 
 its having been framed according to some Arabic original, nor that 
 of its having been made with the aid of the Hebrew original, is 
 sufficiently proved.^ The Ethiopian Canon thus embraces not 
 only the Apocryphal books, but also a number of pseudepigraphical 
 records, of which, up to this period, the fourth book of Ezra,^ the 
 
 1 S. Gieseler, KG. I., s. 561. 
 
 2 Hist. Aetbiop. III., c.4, § .5. Comp. comment, iu histor. Aetli. III., 4, p. 295, sq. 
 
 3 Comp. Gesenius, hall. Lit. z. 1832 No. 2, s 9. Roediger, ibid. No. 8, s. 58, ff. 
 
 4 Edited by Laurence, Oxon. 1820. See concerning this Liicke, Einl. in die Offenb 
 Job. s. 78, ff. 
 
 X 2 
 
"21 HISTOKY OF THE 
 
 bi)ok of Enoeli/ and ihe dva^aTLKov'Haatov,^ have become known, 
 — a kind of literature for which this Church entertained a great 
 predilection, which still prevails. 
 
 The Ethiopic translation is extant in Europe in its entireness, in 
 manuscript form f only detached portions have been printed. — 
 most frequently the Psakur (with the Song of Solomon, ed. J. 
 Potken., Rom., 1513, 4 ; in the London Polygl. ; by H. Ludolf. 
 Francof. ad. M. 1701,4; by itself: London, 1815, 8, (at the 
 expense of the Bible Society) ; corap. Dorn de PsaUerio Aethiopico. 
 Lips., 1825, 4. The Song of Solomon alone, edited by Nissel, 
 Lugd. Bat. 1656, Ruth, by the same, 1660; Jonah, by Theod. 
 Petraeus, Lugd. B. 1660 ; the first four chapters of Genesis, by G. 
 Chr. Biirklin. Francof. ad M. 1696; Joel, by Petraeas, Ludg. B. 
 1661 ; Malachi, by the same, 1661. Comp. also Rosenmiiller, 
 Handb. 3, s. 65, flf. 
 
 (2) The Egi/ptian translations. Since the spread of Christi- 
 anity* in the interior provinces of Egypt, about the close of the 
 third, and beginning of the fourth centuries (especially since the 
 Decian persecution), and after the introduction of Monachism, the 
 subject of translations into the Egyptian dialects seems to have 
 claimed attention. These translations recognize the LXX. as their 
 original, and of that, as it appears, the Hesychianic recension, which 
 at that time was in circulation in Egypt. '^ We know of a translation 
 written in the dialect of Lower Egypt, the Memphitic or Coptic, 
 of which are printed, the Pentateuch (ed. Dav. Wilmins, London, 
 1781), the Psalms, Rom., 1744 and 1749, a small portion of 
 Jeremiah (ed, Mingarelli, Bologna, 1785), and of Daniel in 
 Miinter's Specira. Concerning manuscripts of this translation; see 
 Zoega, catalogus codd. Copt, in Museo Borgiano., Rom., 1810, 
 p. 1, sq. The Book of Psalms pertaining to this translation, is 
 cited by Barhebraeus also ; and that it was known to the Syrians 
 
 1 Edited by Laurence, Oxon. 1821. Comp. tbe particulars in Liicke, loc. cit. p. 5'2, ff. 
 Translated, and with notes, by Hoffmann, Jena. 1833. 1st section. 
 
 '-i Edited by Laurence, Oxon. et Lond. 1819. Comp. Geseuius, z. Jes. I. s. 45, if. 
 Nitzscb, Stud, und Krit. 1830, II., s. 209, ff., Liicke, s. 125, ff. 
 
 ^ ^ee tbe catalogue of tbe manuscripts in Ludolpb, Comment, p. 298. Comp. TLom. 
 Pell Piatt, catalogue of tbe Etbiopical biblical manuscripts in tbe royal library of Paris 
 
 and tbe library of tbe Britisb and Foreign Bible Society and of those in tbe Vatican 
 
 library at Eome. — London, 1823, 4. 
 
 * Comp. Dionys. Alexandr. in Euseb. hist. eccl. VI. 42. 
 
 5 Comp, Miinter, spec verss. Daniells Coptic. Rom., 1786, p. 13, sqq. 
 
INTElU'RETATIOiN OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. -'i'-^O 
 
 is evident from the cod. pentaglottus Barberiuus, Nr. 104.^ There 
 is extant besides, a translation of the Old Testament in the dialect 
 of Upper Egypt or Sahidic, (see concerning the manuscripts of 
 this, Engelbreth in N. theol. Journal von Ammon, etc , Vr.,s. 834, 
 fF. Zoega, 1. cit, p. 172, sq. G21), of which however only fragments 
 (in Munter, Mingarelli. and Zoega), have been printed. — There is 
 also a translation of the Old Testament in the Basmuric dialect, 
 which is a mixture of the two dialects mentioned, liaving, however, 
 a greater approximation to the Sahidic (see Zoega, 1. cit., p. 140, 
 sq.) See on this subject, Zoega, 1. cit., and Engelbreth fragm. 
 Basmurico Copt. V. et N. T. Hafn., 1811. 
 
 (8.) The Anneiiiati trandation. Christianity had come to tbs 
 x\rmenians already in the second century, — had spread more 
 generally in the time of Constantino, — and in the fifth century, 
 Miesrob gave them an alphabet and a translation of the Bible.^ 
 This translation has proceeded from the LXX., and seems to have 
 followed a mixed text of this version.^ From a passage of Barhe- 
 braeus (schol. ad Ps. xvi. 2), it has been supposed that this 
 translation had received emendations from the Peschito ; but the 
 passage of Barhebraeus represents this as merely a conjecture, and 
 the thing itself is still doubtful.^ It is more probable that at the 
 time of Barhebraeus there was extant a Syrian translation made 
 according to the Armenian.^ It is moreover uncertam whether 
 this translation received interpolations from the Vulgate in the 
 thirteenth century.^ Concerning the editions of this translation, 
 see Rosenmiiller, Handb. 3, s. 78, fF. Le Long, bibl. H. II., p. 
 178, sq. ed Masch. 
 
 (4.) The Georgian translation has, like the Armenian, proceeded 
 from the LXX. ; but has been altered according to the Sclavonian.'^ 
 It originated in the sixth century. 
 
 1 S. Wiseman, lior. Syr., p. 144, 14-5. 
 
 2 S. Moses Choreuensis, hist. Armen, ed. Wliiston. c. 54, and c. bl. 
 
 3 Comp. La Croze, thes. episi. p. 201. Bredenkamp in EicLborn, allg. Bibl. IV , s. 
 632, £F. Wliiston, praef. ad Mos. Clior. p. XII., sq. 
 
 * Comp. "Wiseman, 1. cit. p. 142, who gives the passage of Barhebraeus, which, until 
 tlien, was known only partially (a. Walton, prolegg. c. 13, § 16), in its connection. 
 
 5 S. Wiseman, p. 143. Rhode, 1. cit., p. 74, sq. 
 
 ^ S. Alter, philol. kritische Miscellen, s. 140, tf., and iu Holmes, jiraef. ad edit. LXX. 
 C.4. 
 
 7 Comp. Alter iiber georgianisclie Literaliir. Wien, 179^. Ei(dilioru's allg. Bibl. 
 Til. I.,s. 153, H-. rf- 
 
82 G 
 
 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 (5.) Several Arabic translations. To this class belongs 
 especially the translation of the Prophets, Psalms, and writings of 
 Solomon, as extant in the Polyglotts of Paris and London, written 
 by an Alexandrian cleric sometime since the tenth century. It 
 has proceeded from a Hexaplario Codex, and in some cases deviates 
 from the LXX., conforming itself more to the reading of some 
 other translation more consonant with the Hebrew.^ The translation 
 of the Book of Ezra has likewise been made from the Greek.^ To 
 these Arabic translations belongs also the Psalter edited at Rome 
 1014 (by Gabr. Lionita and Victor. Scialac), which has proceeded 
 from the Alexandrine translation, but has here and there received 
 corrections from the Peschito and Vulgate.^ The Psalters (repeatedly 
 printed, — latterly in London 1725, in Vienna 1792), belonging to 
 the Melchites or orthodox section of oriental Christians, have also 
 come from this source,'* as also several other Arabic translations, 
 not printed.^ 
 
 § 78. THE VERSIO VENETA. 
 
 More a literary and historical curiosity than really useful exege- 
 tically, is the Greek translation of several books of the Old 
 Testament in the hbrary of St Mark in Venice (Cod. No. 7). Its 
 characteristic peculiarities are as follows : It adheres with still 
 greater fidelity than the work of Aquila to the letter of the original ; 
 the exegesis of words closely follows Rabbinical tradition ; it has 
 
 1 Couceniing several portions of it in Isaiah, comp. Gesenius, Comment. I., s. 98, ff. ; 
 in Jeremial), Spohn, Jeremias vates etc. T., p. 21, sq.; in Daniel, Wald im Report. XIV., 
 s. 204, If. Lengerke's opinion that the original text had also been consulted (das B. 
 Daniel, s. CXV.) seems to me to be incorrect : some cases are explained by supposing 
 the use of an Hexaplario text, others by supposing that the translator has given an 
 Arabic meaning to the Hebrew word retained in the Greek. It is remarkable that Abu 
 Said also renders SUinar by Irak (Gen. x. 10), the same as the Arabic in Dan. i. 2, 
 which seems to me to indicate, if not that the translators mutually aided each other, yet 
 that both translations were executed contemporaneously, since it was customary to use 
 Irak for Babylon. 
 
 '•i S. Rbdiger, de origine et indole Arab, librorum V. Ti. histor. iuterpretaticnis (Hal 
 1^*29), p. 35. 
 
 3 S. Rodiger, hall. Lit. Z. 1882, Nr. 8, s. 01. 
 
 * S. Diiderlein, im Repert. II., s. 176, ff. Th. IV , s. 87, ff. Rosenmuller, Handb. 
 Th. 3, s. 49, ft'. 
 
 S S. .\dler,'bibl. krit. Reise, s. Q^, uiid 179, Pauliis, spec, verss, renlateuchi septem 
 Arabb., p. 58, sq. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 327 
 
 very few deviations from our textus receptus, and most of these 
 betoken want of knowledge on the part of the author ; the style is 
 a strange medley of attempts at Attic elegance and barbarisms ; the 
 Chaldaic portion of the book of Daniel is written in the Doric 
 dialect ; the author seems on the whole to have been disposed to 
 make a display of his proficiency in the Greek language. This 
 latter circumstance would fix the date of the work as being 
 sometime after the ninth century, -when the study of the Greek 
 language, and a certain scientific life, began to revive in Greece.^ 
 It is hardly possible to determine the date more precisely, since 
 all notices of a more definite kind are wanting, and the various 
 hypotheses^ professing to be more precise are not supported by 
 sufficient evidence. There is the same uncertainty as to whether 
 the author was a Jew or a Christian. But, indications of a certain 
 degree of acquaintance with the Aramaean, the Rabbinical mode of 
 handling the matter, and especially the fact of the work being 
 divided into Parashes, are circumstances which decidedly argue a 
 Jewish authorship ; and Byzantium is considered as most probably 
 the place of its origin.^ 
 
 The style of character used in the MS. would indicate that it was 
 written in the fourteenth century, but it seemingly is a transcript 
 of some older original, and contains some things decidedly not 
 authentic.'* The Pentateuch is edited by Ammon (III. voll. 
 Erlang. 1790, 1791), and Proverbs, Koheleth, Song of Solomon, 
 Ruth, Lamentations, Daniel, and portions of the Pentateuch by 
 Villoison (Argentor. 1784.) Comp. Eichhorn's Allg. Bibl. 3, s. 
 371, ff., 5, s. 743, ff. ; Dahler, animadverss. in vers. gr. Prow, 
 etc. Argentor. 1786. Pfannkuche, in Eichh. Bibl. 7, s. 193, ff. 
 
 1 Comp. Heeren, Gesli. der klass Litter, im Mittelalter (Uistor. sVerke Th. IV.) 1, s. 
 13S, flF. 
 
 2 See these in Bertholdt, EinL II., s. 566, ff. 
 
 3 So among others, Gesenius, Gesch. d. Hebr. Spr., s. 103. 
 
 4 " I presume, however, it will not be easy to find a copy of this translation, because 
 it seems to be only a private translation of some one." Spolin, der Prtdiger Salonio 
 iibers. etc., s. xxix. 
 
0^8 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 2. ORIENTAL VERSIONS. 
 § 79. TARGUMIM. THEIR ORIGIN. 
 
 Already in the time of Ezra the law was publicly read to the 
 people, accompanied by a translation into Chaldee (Nehem. viii. 8.) 
 This ecclesiastical usage, rendered necessary by the change of 
 language consequent on the captivity, was undoubtedly continued 
 in after times. It rose in importance especially when the Synagogues 
 and public schools began to flourish, the chief subject of occupation 
 in which was, the exposition of the Thorah. The office of 
 interpreter^ thus became one of the most important, and the Canon 
 of the Talmud, that as the Law was given by a Mediator, so it can 
 be read and expounded only by a Mediator, became paramount.^ 
 The Talmud contains, even in its oldest portions, precise injunctions 
 concerning the manner of conducting these expository prelections — 
 the style of reading — the portions to be read and expounded at the 
 same time, &.c. " By an interpreter generally appointed for the 
 purpose, the text read was translated to the congregation extempore, 
 into Aramaean, in verses or paragraphs, so that the reader and 
 interpreter discoursed by turns."^ It was at first the prevailing 
 practice to expatiate freely, and a considerable license in exposition 
 seems to have been allowed the interpreter.'* 
 
 At a later period the abuse so apt to grow out of such a practice 
 seems to have become perceptible.^ The fixed hermeneutical rules 
 which regulated the exposition of the Law became also by degrees 
 more firmly established, and served to hrait this license.** In this 
 way the worth of written expositions came to be appreciated. This 
 
 1 pjiina, i»3jT,n, s^ias, less frequently: y^ii, comp. Zunz, die gottesdienstl. 
 Vortr. d. Juden, s. So'Z. 
 
 2 Aiegillali Hieros. lol. 74, 
 
 3 Comp. Zunz, lib. cit. p. 8 ; also s. Schoettgen, hor. 1. p. 99, sq. 
 
 4 Comp. Zunz, loc. cit. p 74. Ligbtfoot, lior. ad. Mattli. iv. 23: Targumista vel. 
 jnterpres — licentia aliquando ushs est exspatiandi in parapbrasin ; exempla buius rei 
 occuiTunt Hier, Bieurim f. 65, 4. Sanbedr. f. 20, 3. Bab. Beracotb f. 28, 1, alibiq. 
 Comp. Ibid, in Luke iv. 16. 
 
 5 Comp. tr. Sotali p. 818, ed. Wageuseil. 
 
 6 Comp. Kidduscbin fol. 49. Buxtorf, lex. Cbald. Rabb. Talra. p. 2643. Ligbtfoot, bor. 
 ad 1 Cor, xiv, 2. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. .320 
 
 we find corroborated by the aphorism of the Talmud : " Without 
 a Targum we should be unable to understand this or that passage."^ 
 
 Superadded to this, was an impulse from without. The hellenistic 
 Jews^had for a long time been in possession of the Law translated 
 into their language, and in the second century, not only had the 
 Syrians been prompted to translate the Holy Scriptures, but even 
 the Jews themselves issued Greek versions in opposition to the 
 Alexandrine version, and these were received with decided appro- 
 bation even by the Talmudists, as the repeated and honourable 
 mention of Aquilla in the Talmud proves.^ It would therefore 
 have appeared singular, had not the Jews familiar with the Aramaean 
 dialect also followed the practice at that time universally prevalent, 
 and sought to profit by it. 
 
 We have, in point of fact, certain traces of written Targums as 
 extant at least in the time of Christ. For even the Mishna seems to 
 imply this, tr. Jadaim 4, § 5, where the subject treated is the 
 language and style of character to be used in writing the Targums. 
 Further, the Gemarah (Schabbath f 115, I,) mentions a written 
 Targum on Job of the middle of the first century (in the time of 
 Gamaliel), which incurred the disapprobation of Gamaliel.^ Zunz 
 here very justly remarks : " Since it is not likely that a beginning 
 should have been made with Job, a still higher antiquity, as very 
 probably belonging to the first renderings of the Law, may be 
 assumed (lib. cit. p. 62.) 
 
 It may indeed be questioned whether what is here said of the 
 reception given by the Jews to those first attempts be just. For 
 certainly " the Targum, like the Halachah, belonged to the things 
 which were not to appear in written form ;■* however, this rule was 
 not strictly observed ; and precautionary means of this sort were 
 used only lest anything of this kind put upon record should 
 thereby attain to canonical authority. Perhaps interpretations not 
 officially conducted inspired those skilled in law at least with a 
 dread of Targums."' (Zunz, loc. eit.) But the very circumstance 
 of the Halachah being in the Talmud regarded as a subject which 
 
 1 Comp. Hottinger, thes. philol. p. 256. 
 
 2 Cotnp. Lightfoot, hor. ad acta ap., append, cap. IX. Zunz, loo. cit. p. 82, s. also 
 Hierouymus, ad .(es. c. 8.— The LXX., on the contrary, is nowhere cited, and even 
 regarded with disapprobation. See Lightfoot, 1, cit. c. VII. sq. 
 
 3 Comp. Lightfoot, l.cit. cap. VI. 
 
 1 Cdnip. tlje passHges in Eisennii'nger, endt. ,11111. 1., s. 208, if. 
 
380 HISTORY OP THK 
 
 ought not to assume a written form, justifies the supposition that, 
 before the introduction of this rigour an exception had already been 
 estahUshed, which could not at a later period be reversed. It is at 
 all events impertinent on this ground to deny with Eichhorn^ the 
 rise of Targums in the first century after Christ, and to regard 
 them, consequently, as contemporary with the Talmud. If the 
 earlier origin of the Targums is not conceded, we are shut up to 
 the conclusion that they were written at a period subsequent to 
 that of the origin of the Talmud,""^ — which certainly has this truth 
 for it, that the Targums, during the time peculiar to the rise of the 
 Talmud, neither enjoyed a firm legal standing, nor proved effectual 
 in entirely superseding the practice of free prelections. 
 
 A chief objection^ advanced against so early an origin of the 
 Targums is the silence of the Christian Fathers, of whom none — 
 not even those of whom it might have been confidently expected, 
 such as Epiphanius and Jerome — mention the subject. But this 
 objection has been repeatedly met by the just remark,* that this 
 silence on the part of the Fathers is sufficiently explained by the 
 circumstance of their not knowing ihe Chaldee language, and the 
 small importance they attached to these paraphrases as compared 
 with the Greek translations. If along with this we take into 
 consideration the manner in which, for instance, Epiphanius 
 expresses himself about the Talmud,'^ it will be all the less surpris- 
 ing, particularly since the Jews themselves did not very highly 
 prize the Targums. But, in truth, the assertion in question is 
 not even supported by the real facts of the case ; for although 
 the Targums are not made use of in the Peschito, they were, 
 nevertheless, as it appears known to Ephraem Syrus.^ 
 
 1 Einl. II., s. 15 ff. after tbe example of Morinus, exercitatt. bibl. p. 321, eq. 
 
 2 Thus Luzzato, in his Pbiloxenus, s. de Onkelosi parapbr. Cbald. (Vienn. 1830.) 
 Oomp. ball. LZ. 1832, Nr. 3. s. 23. 
 
 3 Several other objections of less importance are satisfactorily met by Gesenius, 
 Comment, z. Jes. I, s. 66, ff. Winer de Onkeloso, p. 10, sq. 
 
 i Comp. e.g. Jabn, Einl. I. s. 190, ff. 
 
 5 S. Jost, Gescb. d. Israel IV. s. 274, ff 
 
 6 Comp. the collocations in v. Lengerke de Ephraemi S. arte liermeneut. p. 14;, sqq., 
 with the express citation of the Targums in .Jacob of Edessa, Assemaui, bibl. Or. I. p. 
 66, from which passage Eichhorn II. s. 228, ff., incorrectly infers the existence of a 
 Syrian Targum. The acquaintance of the fciyrians with Jewish writings appears likewise 
 finm tlie citations of these occurring in Bnrhebracus, s. Bernstein, chr. Syr. p. 186, 7. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 831 
 
 § 80. THE TARGUMS OF ONKELOS ON THE PENTATEUCH, AND OF 
 JONATHAN ON THE PROPHETS. 
 
 These two translations are mentioned to us as the earliest. 
 Among the eighty distinguished disciples of Hillel, Jonathan the 
 son of Uzziel^ was, according to the Talmud, the chief; he must 
 therefore have flourished shortly before the birth of Christ. He 
 received his translation from the lips of the prophets Haggai, 
 Zechariah, and Malachi, amid wonderful events"^ — a representation 
 which seemingly was meant, not only to attest the high claims of 
 the translation, but also to indicate that it was regarded as the 
 first publication of this kind. Somewhat later flourished Onkelos — 
 the disciple and friend of Gamaliel — who honoured this, his 
 preceptor, with a costly funeral,' and who received his Targum 
 from the lips of E, Eliezer and K. Joshua.* The later Talmudists 
 frequently confound him with the Greek translator, Aquila,^ which 
 only proves his high antiquity. 
 
 Both translations are frequently cited in the Talmud, and hence, 
 it appears, were presumed to be known. ^ The works themselves 
 also contain indications of each other's existence, as exact coinci- 
 dences in the case of several passages show.^ But this circumstance 
 does not seem to demand to be explained, as if Jonathan had 
 availed himself of Onkelos,^ but admits also of the opposite 
 conclusion, that Onkelos had made use of Jonathan. For, in the 
 first place, the tradition of the Talmud concerning the prior 
 existence of Jonathan cannot be given up except for cogent 
 reasons ; — and then, it is in itself probable that an attempt to 
 interpret the prophets would be made before undertaking what was 
 attended with more risk — a translation of the Law. Moreover, 
 that a tendency favourable to translations of the Old Testament 
 
 1 Baba bathra, f. 134, 1. Succah, f. 28, 1. Jost, loc. cit. III. p. 114. 
 
 2 Megillah, f. 3, 1. Buxtorf, lex. p. 2641. Wolf, bibl. Hebr. II. p. 1159. 
 
 3 Comp. Avodah sarab, p. 81, ed. Edzardi. Josli, s. 173, ff. 
 
 * Megillab, f. 3, 1. Maimonides Moreh Neb. II. p. 229 : Buxt. See concerning both 
 Olhonis bistor. doct. Misuic, p. 118, sq, 
 
 5 Comp. Winer de Oukeloso, p. 7, sq. .Jost, s. 208, and Anb., s. 187. 
 
 6 Comp. Zuuz, loc. cit., p. 63. 
 
 7 Comp. Targ. Deut. xxii. 5, with Jiidd. v. 26; Deut. xxiv, 16, willi 2 Regg. xiv. 6; 
 Num. xxi. 2^'^, 29, with Jerem. xliv. 45, 46. 
 
 » As Zunz thinks, loc. cit., p. BS. 
 
o;i2 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 prevailed in the time of Gamaliel is of itself quite in keeping 
 with the more liberal character of this man as known otherwise, as 
 also with the notice concerning the translation of the book of 
 Job occurring in the preceding section. 
 
 The translation of Onkelosis, on the one hand, very simple and 
 exact. It is obvious, from the character of the work, that the author 
 was in possession of a rich exegetical tradition ; hence we never 
 find him omitting any passages of the original '} his elucidations of 
 difficult and obscure passages and expressions are commonly those 
 most accredited by internal evidence, and in this particular he is 
 worthy of a more careful regard and assent than has usually fallen 
 to his lot f he even sometimes retains the Hebrew word where a 
 corresponding term has not occurred to him. But, on the other hand, 
 he frequently elucidates the sense and expression so as to suit his 
 own purposes ; still he does this sparingly, and only so far as it 
 seemed to him necessary for the sake of intelligibility,^ without 
 indulging in heterogeneous additions. We find in his case only 
 one instance of Cabbalistic interpretation.^ Certainly, the influence 
 of doctrinal questions peculiar to the times is apparent also in his 
 case ; but not to insist on the supposition that the text was at a 
 later period interpolated with some such things — still interpretations 
 savouring of Rabbinism but rarely occur,^ and doctrinal repre- 
 sentations are still characterized by great simplicity without the 
 colouring of a later Jewish development, — such as the doing away 
 with anthropomorphism with respect to the divine Being — the 
 idea of the constant working of God by instrumentality.'^ He 
 expounds only two passages concerning the Messiah (Gen. xlix. 
 ]U; Num. xxiv. 17.)^ 
 
 1 S. Winer, l.cit. p. 35, not. 
 
 '■i As Winer, p. 27, sq., also has too often declared himself against him; particularly 
 since he does not sufficiently weigh the full meaning of such passages, as occurring in 
 Onkelos' work. 
 
 ^ Hence this chiefly occurs in the uredictions Gen. xlix. ; Num. xxiv. ; Deut. xxxii. 
 33. Winer, p. 36, sq. Hall. Lit. Z. 1832. Nr. 3, s. 34, fl'. 
 
 4 Application of the Gematria, Num. xii. 1. S. Hartmanu. die enge Verbind. des A. 
 u N.T.S., 689. 
 
 5 Comp. Gen. iii. 21, 22, i v. 10, xii. 5, Exod. ; xx. 5; Levit. xxiii. 11; Deut. vi. 8 
 tt al. 
 
 6 Heuoe the •^"■^'s^'a^'o ■''■iis!^3"'3'i", "^'^-S^p"', ■'"■'^^^^s''5'3. That the last expression 
 occurs but once, Exod. iv. 24, proves the simplicity of this idea derived from the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 7 Comp. with this the hiter Tnrgums, which take up 17 passages on this subject, in 
 Buxlorf, lex. p. 126H, sq. 
 
INTERPRF.TATION 01' THE OLD TESTAMENT. J^33 
 
 With this character of interpretation the language of Onkeh)S is 
 in harmony : it greatly approaches to the biblical Chaldee, i.e. it 
 has still much of Hebrew colouring, though in a less degree than 
 the other. It also avoids many Aramaisras (such as the contraction 
 of nouns), which at a later period became prevalent, and as yet 
 comprises a comparatively small number of Greek words, and of 
 Latin words none whatever.^ There are besides some obscure 
 expressions which partly were unintelligible to the Talmudists.^ 
 
 In the text of Onkelos there is still much room for correction, 
 especially by means of consulting good manuscripts.^ The 
 principal editions are in the Complutensian Polyglott — more 
 correctly in the Editio Veneta (of the Bomberg Bible of the year 
 1.526), with improved punctuation in Buxtorf's Rabbin. Bible, 
 and after this in tlie Polyglotts of Paris and London.^ Transla- 
 tions by Fagius, Argent. 1550. 
 
 The Targum of Jonathan is of a somewhat different nature. 
 " The prophetical writings," justly remarks Zunz, s. 63, " not 
 containing anything of the nature of legal enactment, admitted 
 of a greater latitude in handling the text ; this became even 
 unavoidable because of the more obscure language, and the 
 predictions concerning Israel's future, by which they are charac- 
 terized. Even in the case of the historical books Jonathan often 
 acts the part of an expositor ; in the case of the prophets 
 themselves this course of exposition — in reality becoming a Hagadah 
 — is pursued almost uninterruptedly." This pervading, often 
 misunderstood characteristic, constitutes the chief proof, confirmed 
 also by external evidence of the oneness of the authorship of this 
 Targum. For, not only do parallel passages (such as Isaiah 
 xxxvi. — xxxix. ; comp. 2 Kings xviii. 13, ff. ; Isaiah ii. 2 — 4; 
 Micah v. 1 — 3) literally harmonize, but he is also in the habit of 
 furnishing, particularly the poetical portions of the historical books 
 (.ludd. v., 1 Sara. ii. ; 2 Sam. xxiii.), with profuse additions. These 
 
 1 Comp. Winer, 1. cit p. 8, sqq. EicLlioni (II. s. 44, ff ) here discovers Babylonian 
 forms and expressions, but witliout foundation. 
 
 2 Comp. S3'ijS3 (s. Bochart, hieroz. II., ]i. 393, Rosenra.) Winer, p 35. 
 
 3 The more recent attemp' by Luzzato in the work already cited. Comp. Hall L. Z. 
 1832, 4, s. 26, fF. The text is made to harmonize with the Hebrew original with par- 
 ticular frequency. 
 
 1 Comp. Wolf, bibl. Hebr. II , p. 385, sq. Le Long, bibl. s.ed. Masch. 1., p. 95, sq. 
 Winer, 1. cit. p. 12, sq. 
 
384 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 additions often very much resemble each other (comp. Judges v. 8 
 with Isaiah x. 4 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 4, with Isaiah xxx. 2G. See 
 Hulsius' Theol, Jud. p. 157, et al.)^ 
 
 If the author has laboured to embellish the text and to enrich 
 it with glosses and traditions, he has in this entirely followed the 
 taste of his contemporaries ; and besides be had the example of 
 precedents. Even the book of Sirach is lavish in pronouncing 
 eulogies on famed Theocratists, and the Targumist pursues the 
 same course,^ — his paraphrase, generally speaking, being in many 
 respects analogous to that book in the entire view it gives of ancient 
 history and prophecy. Of especial importance are the Jewish 
 opinions of that day with which the work is interwoven, and the 
 theological representations, — in introducing which a special pre- 
 ference was given to the Book of Daniel. Examples of this are, 
 the interpreting of the phrase " Stars of God" by " People of God" 
 (Isaiah xiv. 13, comp. Dan. viii. 10; 2 Mace. ix. 10); the 
 application of the passage in Dan. xii. 1 to that in Isaiah iv. 2 ; 
 in Isaiah x. 32 the author introduces a legend framed in imitation 
 of the narrative in Daniel chap, iii., which is repeated by later 
 Targumists (comp. Targ. Hieros. ; Gen, xi. 28, xvi. 5 ; 2 Chr. 
 xxviii. 3) in Isaiah xxii. 14,lxv. 15, he has interwoven the doctrine 
 concerning the second death (see Apoc. ii. 11 ; Baumgarten- 
 Crusius, Bibl. Th. s. 341) ; in Isaiah xxx. 13 he mentions Gehenna;^ 
 a particular example is the doctrine concerning the Messiah peculiar 
 to him, which he frequently brings in in connection with non- 
 Messianic passages also ; this doctrine, however, he presents in a 
 still very simple form — sometimes giving it a close resemblance to 
 the New Testament representation of it (comp. e.g. Isaiah xlii. 1, 
 ff. ; Matt. xii. 17, flf. ; but from this the LXX. differs) ; at other 
 times differing from it (comp. Zechariah xii 10, s. Hengstenb. 
 Christol. II. s. 300.) The 53d chapter of Isaiah he recognizes as 
 referring to the Messiah, and assumes a suffering and expiatory 
 
 1 Comp. Gesenius, Comment, on Isaiah i., s. 69, if., against Eicbboru's assertion 
 (repeated also in the 4th edition II., s. 66, flf. ) in favour of a variety of authors; to 
 which Maurer also in his Comment, on Jos. s. 185, AT. shews a leaning. 
 
 2 Examples of this are likewise the historical representations of Josephus. S. 
 Bretschneider, capp. thecl. etc. p. 18. Thalemaun, de nube suptr area foederis, p. 125, 
 sq. 
 
 3 But with simplicity, and in phraseology similar to that peculiar to the New Testa- 
 lueut, and without the embellishments of a later style. Buxtorf, lex. p. 395, sq. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 335 
 
 Messiah. He nevertheless here as well as elsewhere {e.g. Micah 
 V. 1 ) indulges in many perversions.^ He seems to have entertained 
 — in germ at least — the idea, which became farther developed in 
 the Talmud, of a Messiah submitting to obscurity for the sake of 
 the sins of the people, and then appearing in glory.^ " Jonathan's 
 Targum on the Prophets" — Zunz therefore justly remarks (s. 33S) 
 — " as a result of studies which were instrumental in forming 
 fixed national opinions, proves that a considerable time before, it 
 was customary to explain the contents of the prophetical books, 
 by means of targumical prelections or otherwise, to the public. 
 Nay he commends the teachers for — even in evil times — teaching 
 the Law in the synagogues, at the head of the congregations." A 
 careful discrimination ought certainly here to be made in reference 
 to what has at a later period been introduced by interpolation. 
 Even Kaschi (in Ezekiel xlvii. 19) speaks of interpolations in the 
 text of Jonathan i';^, and Wolf says : Quae vero, vel quod ad voces 
 et barbaras, vel ad res aetate ejus inferiores, aut futilia nonnulla, 
 quamvis pauca triplicis hujus generis exstent, ibi occurrunt, ea 
 merito falsarii cujusdam ingenio adscribuntur.^ 
 
 The style also of Jonathan is upon the whole the same 
 as that of Onkelos : Cujus nitor sermonis Chaldaei et dictionis 
 laudatur puritas, ad Onkelosum proximo accedens et purum deflec- 
 tens a puro tersoque Chaldaismo biblico (Carpzov, crit. s. p. 461.) 
 We certainly meet (as in the case of Onkelos) with a number of 
 Greek words, but not with any Latin words, asEichhorn maintains, 
 without however, proving it.* 
 
 The principal editions are in the Bomberg and Buxtorfian Bibles, 
 and the London Polyglott. Of the Paraphrase of the Minor 
 Prophets several books have been separately published at the press of 
 the Stephens, 1552-57, — Hoseaby H. von der Hardt. (Helmstad. 
 1702), a second impression Gottingen 1775 (by J. D. Michaelis.) 
 
 1 Comp Hengsteiiberg, Christol. I. 2, s. 291, flf. III. s. 301. 
 
 2 Comp. Micah iv. 8 with Zechariab iii. 8, iv. 7. Comp also Justin M. dial. c. Tryph. 
 11. 8. — Meanwhile, the work of .Jonathan discovers no traces of a polemical tendency 
 against Christians, as is asserted by Eichhorn, Einl. II. s. 63, 64, 4th edition. 
 
 3 Bibl. H. II. p. 1165. Zunz, s. 63, 282 (comp. Gesenius, loc, cit. p. 68) reckons as 
 belonging to this, every thing hostile to Rome, particularly the mention of Armillus, and 
 things similar. However, such things may in part at least be considered as belonging 
 to a period immediately preceding the Christian era. 
 
 * Einl. II. s. 66. The word sr^r."^p is hardly = corona, but is derived from •,'ip. 
 
'S8(i HISTORY OF THE 
 
 § 81. TARGUM JERUSCHALMI ON THE PENTATEUCH AND THE 
 PROPHETS. 
 
 The greater simplicity which characterized the older Targuras 
 soon ceased to satisfy the progressively degenerating taste of the 
 Jews, especially after the Talmud began to assume a written form. 
 Hence Targums marked by greater laxity soon began to be written, 
 which embraced more of the opinions peculiar to the age, and 
 furnished the text with richer traditional addenda. Of these 
 latitudinarian Targums we possess two on the Pentateuch, — the 
 one known by the name of Pseudo-Jonathan, inasmuch as writers 
 of a later period ascribe it to the author of the Targum on the 
 Prophets •} and the commonly so-called Targum Hierosolymitanum. 
 A more minute and very thorougli investigation'' has proved that 
 both are internally one, and has led to the conclusion that the 
 Targum on the Pentateuch improperly attributed to Jonathan, 
 existed among the ancients under the name of Targum of Pa/esthie 
 and Hierosolymitanic Targum of which there were several editions 
 extant ; so that our Pseudo-Jonathan is identical with the Targum 
 Jeruschalmi — the fragmentary Targum, on the other hand, is only 
 a different edition of it. 
 
 The design of this class of writings differed entirely from that of the 
 earlier pre- talmudic productions. In the one case we have simply 
 an effort called forth by necessity, to render the simple meaning of 
 the text into a language universally understood, and to introduce 
 the requisite explanations, only where these seemed to be necessary. 
 In the other case we have a work written in conformity with 
 the laws of allegorical interpretation enjoined in the Talmud, 
 (Kidduschin f. 49, 1) and abounding, to excess, in allegory and 
 traditional supplement.^ Accordingly, if some of the author's 
 explanations are the offspring of ignorance or want of exegetical 
 
 1 S. Pfeiffer, de Targumim— opp. II. p. 875. 
 
 2 In Zunz, loc. cit. p. 66—72. The same even by earlier writers, sucli as Carpzov, 1. 
 cit. p. 448, sq. 
 
 3 Noster (Psendo-Jon)— omnia sibi licere ratus, vix quinque aut sex versiculos de 
 verbo reddidit, plurima, in summum arbitrium elfusus, addeiidis, mutandis, pervertendis 
 si'ntentiis iutegris ad iugenia popularium ita accommodavit, ut persaepe uon libros 
 sacros sed commenta Rabbinonim legere tibi videaris. Winer, de Jonatli. in pent, 
 parapbr. cbald. spec. I. (Erl. 1823.) p. 8. 
 
INTEIIPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 337 
 
 penetration, still, we must by no means attribute to this cause all 
 the instances that occur of a perversion of the text, and of a 
 Pseudo-Hermeneia, since he possessed a general knowledge of the 
 paraphrase of Onkelos, and frequently avails himself of it; but 
 these peculiarities may properly be attributed to an intentional and 
 arbitrary combination of, and trifling with the meaning of words, of 
 which the Talmud everywhere furnishes full evidence. Winer, 
 even, t. cit. p. 10, sq., has not sufficiently apprehended this design, 
 and therefore the sentiment " ridiculam declaravit inscitiam 
 quae vix in tironibus tolerari potest" is not correct, because it does 
 not take into account the stand-point of the author. This mode 
 of interpreting, however, is borrowed from traditional usage, as are 
 the supplements and legends with which the author enriches the 
 text, and most of which occur again in the Talmud.-^ " Almost all 
 his explanations and embellishments coinciding with the Hagadah 
 we find occurring in the other Hagadah writings ; the few which 
 are peculiar to him, he has not devised any more than Jonathan 
 has devised his interpretation of the Prophets. In both, the culture 
 of the age, and the potency of traditional ideas, are manifest."^ 
 The fewer the exegetical facilities accordingly, which this paraphrase 
 off'ers for the understanding of the Old Testament, the more 
 important is it as being replete with examples of the mode of 
 interpreting, and of the theological doctrines^ peculiar to the Jews 
 at a later period. The more so because the traditions peculiar to 
 it were derived not only from the Talmud, but also from older 
 Targums written in a freer style (s. Zunz, s. 75) — their higher 
 antiquity being sometimes confirmed even by the New Testament.* 
 The use made of the Talmud, and the mention of it (s. Ex. xxvi. 
 9. Jon.) ; the expressions indicative of a later age ; and the 
 barbarous style abounding in foreign words,^ prove the Targum to 
 have originated in the second half of the seventh century (Zunz, s. 
 73, ff.) 
 
 It has justly been assumed that there were extant such freely 
 
 1 Comp. Carpzov, 1. cit. p. 447. Winer, p. 25. The more correct view was also 
 entertained by Petermanu, de duabiis Pentat. paraphr. CLald. (Berol. 1829,) part I. p, 39 
 
 2 Zunz, loc. cit. p. 72. 
 
 3 Comp. Winer, p. 31. 
 
 * Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 8, and Targ. Exod. vii. 11. (comp. concerning tbe usage generally 
 Petermann. p. 53, sq.) ; 1 Cor. x. 4 ; Targ. Num xxi. 19. 
 5 S. the compilation by Petermann, p. 61, sq. 
 
 Y 
 
338 HISTORY OF IHE 
 
 executed Targums on the Prophets also, (see Zunz., loc. cit.) Even 
 the fact that here in the Targum of Jonathan there exist several 
 Targums comhined, which are sometimes accompanied by the 
 express declaration ^^'p\ (-^pf^ c^^j-^pl) might have suggested this. ^ 
 The Talmud also frequently mentions a Targum of Joseph on the 
 Prophets, and the passages of it occur again in our Jonathan.^ 
 To a superfluity Bruns has besides actually found traces of a 
 hierosolym. Targum on the prophets, in MSS.^ 
 
 The Paraphrase of Pseudo-Jon. and the Hierosolymitanum on 
 the Prophets are in the London Polygl. vol. IV. For other editions 
 see Eosenmiiller, Handb. III., s. 9. On the criticism of the text s. 
 Petermann, 1, cit. p. 5, sqq. 
 
 § 82. THE TAKGUMS ON THE HaGIOGRAPKA. 
 
 Translations of the Hagiographa may, even according to intima- 
 tions in the Talmud, have existed early enough :* those now extant 
 all owe their origin to a later period. The intimations of the 
 Rabbins concerning the authors of these, are much divided, and 
 the mention of various authors by them'^ of itself indicates a 
 diversity of authorship, which is also confirmed by their internal 
 contents. The Hagiographa taken as a whole are ordinarily 
 translated into Chaldee ; — though some, such as the Book of 
 Chronicles, particularly late, — with the exception of the books of 
 Ezra (and Nehemiah) and Daniel. The reason at least alleged in 
 the Talmud (Megillah f. 3, 1,) for the non- translation of the book 
 of Daniel, — the revelation of the time when the Messiah was to 
 appear, — is certainly nothing to the point, but seems nevertheless 
 to prove that even at that time a translation of these books was 
 regarded with suspicion, on account, as it appears, of the Chaldee 
 portions of them, since the sacred text of the original would thus 
 
 1 S. EicLhorn, II., s. 72. ff. 
 
 2 S. Coccejus, ad tr. Sanhedrim c. XI. p. 326, sq. 
 
 3 S. Repertor. XV. s. 174, (the passage Zech. xii. 10. Comp. with this the talmud. 
 passage in Hengsteuberg, Christol. I. 1, s. 284.) 
 
 * Comp, also Elias Levita in "irn, s. v. tm. 
 
 5 Comp. lucoasin, p. 53. Elias Levita praef. in Tisbi and in Methurgem R. Asarjah, 
 Meor Enajim, p. 148. Concerning Joseph the blind (in the 4th century), who is 
 nientioued by most, s. Wolf, bibl. Hebr. II., p. 1171, sq., Kocher, uoya bibl. H. II. 
 p. 215. 
 
INTERPRKTATIOX OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 339 
 
 liave been mixed up with the paraphrase — a thing wliich superstition 
 could not tolerate. The most of these paraphrases again are 
 portions of various translations, which were combined, or repeatedly 
 revised editions of the same Targums. 
 
 A distinction ought in the first place to be made in regard to the 
 Targums on Proverbs, Psalms, and Job. The Targum on Proverbs 
 adlieres particularly closely to the Hebrew text, having but few and 
 unimportant deviations from it (such as x. 20, xi. 4, 15.) Its 
 consonance with the Syriac version is remarkable, and repeated 
 attempts have been made to explain this circumstance by assuming 
 that the author was dependent on that version, and made use of it 
 in writing the Targum.^ But without sufficient grounds. For the 
 partial harmony of both versions is suflBciently explained by the 
 literal character of both and the affinity of the idiom. But this 
 argument is considerably outweighed when the deviation of both 
 versions from each other is considered, — since it is thus nevertheless 
 necessary to assume that the Hebrew original was used. Of the 
 least weight as an argument in support of that assumption, is the 
 use made in this Targum of some Syriac forms and expressions, 
 since this may with equal propriety be regarded as the peculiar 
 dialect of the author.^ Besides, almost all these Syriasms are to be 
 found in the Talmud (especially in the T. Hierosol.)^ But special 
 notice ought in this respect to be taken of the affinity of style 
 obtaining in this Targum with that on Psalms and Job and the T. 
 Jeruschalmi — a circumstance which would place it in the class of 
 later paraphrases,* whilst it is at the same time allied to the literal 
 
 1 Comp Dathe,de ratione consensus versionis chaldaicae et syriacae Prow. Saloin., 
 opuscc. p. 1(9, sq. Eichhorn, Ein). II., s. 106, ff. Bauer, cbrestom. Cbald., p. 140, sq. 
 BertLold, Einl. II., s. 600. 
 
 '■i Thus it is not likely that any one reasoning conversely would, from the Chaldaizing 
 colouring of the Hierosolymitana of the New Testament (s. Adler, verss. Syr., p. 141', 
 sq.) infer a Chaldee original. 
 
 3 Such as tlie 3 in the third pers. fut. (comp. Dauz, Rabbin, euucl , p. 79) ; ija, OJliD, 
 (ibid., p. 6!), 103) ; f^H, ^Xoi, Buxtorf. gr. Chald., p. 37, et al. 
 
 * Comp. e.g. the affixed nun in the 3d pers. plur. praet. Peal {eg. Prov. ix. 11. Buxt., 
 p. 51) ; Infinitive with 'o praef. (according to Syr. Analogy Buxt., p. 83, 116) ; isp instead 
 
 of D'^sp, Pr. xxiv. 16 (comp. Num. x. 35. Jon., and in the Talmud Danz, 1. cit., p. 97 and 
 112 ; mis, " in posterioribus paraplirastis, Jobi, Psalmorum et Prow, sub forma hujus 
 
 vi. 29, 32, "^'n, adulter xxx. 20, so likewise Targ. Job. xxxvi. 20 ; Jon. Ex. xx. 14 ; Levit. 
 
 Y U 
 
3i0 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 character of those of an earlier date. The Targura on Psalms aud 
 Job in many respects resembles the other in point of phraseology 
 and conception, and is therefore considered as proceeding from the 
 same author.-^ All tlie three Targums, however, are interwoven 
 with others of a freer character, resembling in their mode of 
 commenting the Targum Jeruschalmi, which latter, as regards Job 
 and Psalms, partly are found in our editions also, and are furnished 
 with the distinctive mark ^^•'j-\^ Psalms, Job, and the first part of 
 Proverbs as extant in the Cod. Erpen. were furnished with such 
 interpolations in the form of marginal glosses.^ The. Psalms 
 certainly seem here and there to indicate a spirit inimical to 
 Christians ; this however proceeded from older Jewish expositions. 
 Comp. Ps. ii. 7, 12 (where the J»^2571^^ "lT''^lp ^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^® 
 LXX. rendered Bpd^aa-de 7rat,8ela<i, and occurs as a Talmudistic 
 explanation. Sanhedrim, f. 92, 1), Ps. ex. 1, (where similar 
 interpretations were meanwhile introduced even by the older Jews, 
 comp. Michaelis, Krit. Colleg., s. 62G, fF. Hengstenberg, Christol. 
 I. 1, s. 141.) — The Targums on Euth, Koheleth, Canticles, 
 comment in the thoroughly free style of a Midrasch. Their post- 
 talmudic origin is proved by the mention of the Talmud (Cant. i. 1, v. 
 10), and of Mahometans, (Cant. i. 7), as likewise by their style; 
 they are enriched chiefly with the legends which in part only occur in 
 Hagadical writings of more recent times.* — On Esther there were 
 particularly many Targums, inasmuch as this book formed one of the 
 favourite books of later Judaism. One of concise form, and adhering 
 closely to the text, occurs in the Antwerp Polyglott (torn. 3) ; it 
 was issued, enlarged by glosses, in Targum prius et posterius, in 
 Esth. — stud. Fr. Taileri. London, 1055, 4, and forms here 
 the T. Prius (of which there is an impression in the Lond. 
 •^ob'g^-) > much more prolix, and amplifying still more the legends 
 of this Targum (s. i. 2, 11, ii. 6, 7, iii. 1, v. 14, et al.), is the 
 T. posterius in Tailer ; other Targums still are extant in manuscript.^ 
 
 XX. 10 ; D'/o"! vo'yuos, Syr. ]mn<vpv Targ. Pss. and Prow., f. niin Buxt.lex., p. 1349; 
 
 '*J^''"'' pLDOJ, Ijodie, Pr. vii. 14 ; Gen. xxiv. 42, Jon. ; pa, exspectare, Buxtorf, lex, p. 
 1282, gr. Cliald., p. 439, et al. 
 
 ^ S. Le Long, biblioth. ^=acra I., p 91. 
 
 ^ Comp. Carpzov, crit. s., p. 463, sq. 
 
 3 Comp. Walton, prolegg., p. 583, sq. 
 
 * Comp. e.g. Carpzov, colleg. Rabbin, in libr. Rutli, p. 56, 88, sq. 181. 
 
 S S. Catal. codd. MSS. bibl. Bodlej. I., p. 432. 
 
IXTEKFlliiTATlON OF THK OLD TliSTAMENT. 341 
 
 With the Jews of Palestine, these supplements ran parallel with 
 those pecaliar to the Jews of Alexandria; and how these, which 
 prohably besides embodied an older Palestinian element (s. Joseph. 
 Ant. XI., (i, G, ff.), were likewise taken into affinity with the others, 
 is evident from their having been translated into Chaldee, though 
 in a free style.^ — For some time even Jewish authors^ believed 
 there existed no Targum on Chronicles. Nevertheless there is 
 one (a.) in the older manuscript of Erfurt, whence it has been 
 edited by Beck (Aug. Vindel. 1680 and 1683); but this cod. has 
 considerable omissions, chiefly in the genealogical portion of 
 Chronicles; (h.) in the cod. Erpen. of the Cambridge Library, 
 complete, and edited by Wilkins, Amstelod. 1715 (very correctly), 
 after Lightfoot had already much used it,^ and Sara. Clarke 
 purposed at an earlier period to edit it ; (c. ) in the cod. Dresdensis, 
 No. 598 (corap. Bahrdt, progr. de incluto cod. Dresd., Carpzov, 
 crit. s. p. 882, sq.), which has not yet been collated. A chief 
 evidence of the comparatively recent date of this Targum is the 
 use made, in compiling it, of the Targum Jeruschalmi on the 
 Pentateuch.* 
 
 The Targams on the Hagiographa are to be found in their most 
 perfect form in the London Polyglott; coucerning several editioiis 
 not mentioned s. Eosenmiiller, Handb. 3, s. 12, fF. 
 
 § 83. THE SYRIAC PESCHITO. 
 
 Of the translations of the Old Testament, issued by Christians, 
 one of the oldest is that belonging to the Syrians, known by the 
 name of Peschito (l^-*-"^^), or the Simple.^ Three explanations 
 ofthis name have been given: (a.) Bertholdt (II., s. 593) regards it 
 as a translation of the expression, koivt), the circulated. But this 
 interpretation is out of place here, as much as is that ( h.J sanctioned 
 by others (as Eichhorn, II., s. 125) : simplex, i.e. litteralis, the 
 
 1 Comp.de Rossi, specimen variarum lectionum sacri textus et Cliald. Esth. addita- 
 menta. Tubing, 1783, 8, p. 103, sq. 
 
 2 Comp. Juchasin, f. 54. 
 
 ' 3 Comp. e.g. bor. Hebr. ad ,Toh. disq. chorogr., 4, 1, ad Job 1, 1, etc. 
 * Comp. Carijzov, crit. s. p. 474, mention of the Hungarians, 1 Clir. v. 10. 
 
 5 The often incorrectly apprehended significations of the root ■& • '^ are connected 
 thus: The primary meaning is tn drair nfl' (cxaeve), to spread out (expandere)— thus 
 
842 HISTORY OF THF. 
 
 verbal.^ (c.) It has been more correctly translated, ■ the simple, 
 i.e. adhering to the literal meaning, as opposed to the allegorical 
 translations and expositions,^ which meaning the expression likewise 
 generally bears in Chaldaic and Rabbinical phraseology.^ 
 
 As respects the age of this translation, both internal and external 
 evidence testifies of its early origin. The following is here advanced 
 on this point. (1.) The first author whom we find making use of 
 this version, is Ephraem Syrus, as the first interpreter of Scripture 
 in the Syrian Church. Later authors accordingly so express 
 themselves as if anterior to this, the Hebrew original had been in 
 use, but a hindrance to this practice interposed by Ephraem.^ 
 This translation had in his time met with a general reception 
 among the Syrians, on which account also he calls it our translation 
 
 ,7 7 7 
 
 (^Z)lC12)Sd).^ Even this circumstance justifies us in placing the 
 date of its origin considerably anterior to Ephraem's times, because 
 a translation but recently issued would hardly in those times have 
 been favoured with so universal a reception. Of importance likewise 
 is the mode of procedure adopted by this Father in making use of 
 this translation. It is, namely, a striking circumstance, that many 
 expressions in it had even to him become obscure, or at least 
 seemed to him to need explanation for the sake of his contempora- 
 ries. Thus, the explanation of t^ by essentia, substantia, shews 
 of course that he was unacquainted with the use of this word as a 
 sign of the accusative -^ — the expression |Z.}.O£D0D, Coriander 
 
 in Hebr. Syr. Arab., — then, copiose rem exponere,— so the Arabic ^***^— ; then 
 extended over a plain : to be extended ; also to be flat ; hence ^ ^t *** " i, superficies ; 
 
 also tropically the simple element, res simplex. Tlie adjective "^***^ embraces all the 
 
 three significations, expansus, aequalis, simplex (flat and simple). Freitag, lex. Ar. I., 
 p. 122. 
 
 1 Perhapsdefined thusalready by Barhebraeus, (in Wiseman, hor. Syr.,'p.86. Bernstein, 
 
 » () 7 ^p £> '^ \y 
 
 chr. Syr. p. 144) : M'^l Pr^-^?— ^?' " which harmonizes with the Hebrew text." 
 
 2 So Geseuius, Comment, on Isaiah I., s. 81. Hirzel, de Pentat. vers. Syr. — indole 
 p. 17. Hug, Einl. I., § 62. 
 
 3 S. V. Lengerke, de Ephraemi s. arte hermen ,p. 121, sq., 128, sq. 
 
 4 A similar use is made likewise of -^ • ^ , c (j. in the case of Ephraem in Habn 
 and Sieffert, chr. Syr., p. 160. 
 
 •' S. Tacriti, (comp. Hettinger, bibl. orient., p 87) in Pococke, praef. ad .fnel, fol. 2. 
 
 6 S. opp. 1. 1., p. 380 (ad 1 Sam. xxiv. 4). 
 
 7 Opp. 1., p. 6, ell. p 116 (where the correct explanation in the Catena does not belong 
 
INTERPKETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 343 
 
 (Kxod. xvi. 31 ; Num. xi. 7.) Ephraem incorrectly interprets 
 \i^ , food of all kind (s. Lengerke, de arte herm. p. 25, sq.) ; — 
 
 the word : (-k»0j.OJ for Q'^}>^T?|'7, Gen. xxx. 14, he explains by: 
 
 it is said to he, etc. — so the ^i2.|_».^jZ), quiver. Job xxix. 23 ; 
 Wisem. p. 130, with which the scholium of Barhebraeus concerning 
 the gender of the word may also be compared (Bernstein, chr. Syr. 
 
 p. 207.) — So the l/\^5or3, Isaiah iii. 24; Wisem. p. 131, and 
 other examples in Wiseman, particularly p. 134, 136. Wiseman 
 lias from such passages justly inferred the high antiquity of the 
 version in question. (2.) The traditions of the Syrians, moreover, 
 agree with this inference. The first witness in support of this is 
 Jacob of Edessa, who, in a remarkable passage^ communicated 
 by Barhebraeus, speaks of " those translators who were sent to 
 Palestine hy the Apostle Thaddeus and the Edessenic King 
 Ahgarus, and who have translated the Scriptures." This testimony 
 is corroborated by that of Jesudad, Bp. of Hadath (of the ninth 
 century), who holds that a portion of the Old Testament was' 
 translated already in Solomon's time by desire of King Hiram ; and 
 that the rest of the Old Testament and the New Testament were 
 translated likewise at the time mentioned by Jacob of Edessa.^ 
 That traditional fact, however, was introduced in connexion with 
 the subject under discussion to gratify the national vanity of the 
 Syrians, who were eager to discover in this alliance of Solomon 
 with the King of Tyre an event flattering and honourable to the 
 Aramaic race.'* Both these traditions are repeated by Barhebraeus 
 (loc. cit.), aud to them he adds a third, purporting that the Peschito 
 was written at the time the Priest Asas came among the Samaritans ; 
 and from these opinions he for himself seems to decide for its 
 apostolical origin.^ 
 
 Now if with these traditions we compare the high antiquity of 
 a Syrian Church in Edessa, and the early rise, in that place, of a 
 
 to him,) s. Credner, de prophet, mill. vers. Syr. indole, p. 17, et p. 31; where consequently 
 Hoti'mann, gr. Syr. p. 299, not. 2, is wrong in attempting to defend Ephraem by the later 
 addition of the Catena. 
 
 1 "Quid fuerit Syris plane, Ephraemo paene ignotiira." Wiseman, p. 122. 
 
 - From tlie Cod. Vatic. Nr. CLXXI. (the Scholia of Barh. on the Psalms) fol. 81 
 (ad Ps X.), in Wiseman, p. 103. 
 
 i» S. Gabr. Sionita, praef. ad Psalter. Syr. aud Assemaui III. 1, p. 210—212. 
 
 ^ Comp. Wiseman, p. 97,sqq. 
 
 ^ Comp. Abulpliariigii hist, dynast, ed. Pococke, p. 100, 
 
844 HISTORY OF THF 
 
 Syrian literature,^ the ancient Edessenic origin of ihe Pescltito 
 appears to be justly regarded as the tenable element in them. But 
 the surer the indications of its having originated in Edessa, the 
 stronger is the proof of its antiquity, inasmuch as writers living in 
 this very place, even of the fourth century, found much in it that 
 was obscure. On the other hand, we find in the translation a 
 strong leaning towards the Hebrew text, even in point of expression, 
 and an affinity with Chaldaic expression ; indeed, the traditions all 
 point to the bearing of a Palestinian or Jewish influence on it, as 
 Wiseman (p. 102) has strikingly shewn. But these circumstances 
 are sufficiently explained when it is borne in mind how all Syria, 
 and particularly Mesopotamia too, were filled with Jews even in 
 Josephus' time.^ In this way it is obvious how a Jewish influence 
 would produce in the Peschito of the Old Testament a relation to 
 the Hebrew text similar to that sustained by the New Testament 
 to the Greek text. 
 
 It ought, moreover, to be well considered that besides this 
 influence of Jewish tradition as aff"ecting the Peschito, it does not 
 upon the whole appear, that aid from any other source was made 
 available in its compilation. For, what has been advanced in 
 support of the use of the LXX. must partly be attributed to 
 subsequent interpolation — a not unlikely source of modification, 
 because, as is evident from the example of Jacob of Edessa, the 
 Peschito was re-written according to the Syro-Hexaplaric translation, 
 — or at least an attempt was made to haimomze both versions, 
 when glosses from other translations were brought into requisition, 
 which might easily creep into the text. A further solution of the 
 question regarding the use of the LXX. must be sought by a 
 reference to exegetical tradition — a source of aid which is besides 
 available in investigations touching the origin of the LXX.^ A 
 certain approximation to the Chaldaic paraphrases, by which the 
 Peschito is partially pervaded, is likewise explicable in this way. — 
 especially when the Jewish influence just noticed is kept in view, — 
 the degree of this approximation being hardly such as to justify the 
 inference that an actual use was made of these paraphrases.* 
 
 1 S. Atli. I. § 22. 
 
 2 Comp. Credner, 1. cit p. 45, v. Lengerke, 1. cit. p. 15. 
 
 3 Comp, in respect to tl)is Eichhorn, Einl. II. s. 142, ff. Gesenius, loc. cit. T. p. 82. 
 lliizel, p. 100, sq. Credner, p. 107, sq. Eodiger, hall. Litz. 1832, Nr. 5, s. 36, ff. 
 
 4 Corap. Gesenius, s. S3. Credner, p. 88, sq. 110, sq. Eotliger, loc. cit. Nr. 6, s. 41. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 345 
 
 The preceding remarks will already have led to the conclusion, 
 that the Peschito is a Christian production. Its internal character 
 proves this assumption to he correct. This is apparent already 
 from the entire absence of renderings resting on Jewish doctrinal 
 opinions — a circumstance all the more important, because this 
 kind of renderings had partially become established, especially in 
 the Targums (in reference, for instance, to the avoiding of anthro- 
 pomorphisms), and a Jewish author would by no means have been 
 unacquainted with those paraphrases, or failed to avail himself of them. 
 Some things are besides positive evidence of this, as, for example, 
 a certain negligence and inaptitude in rendering the Levitical Laws 
 — especially the passage about clean and unclean beasts-^ But 
 this is particularly apparent from its interpretation of the Messianic 
 passages, as Isaiah vii. 14, lii. 15, liii. 8;^ Zechariah xii. 10; 
 Ps. ii. 12, xvi. 10, xxii. 17, ex. 1, 3. These passages are sufficient 
 to overthrow the opinion of Pi. Simon,^ that the author was a Jew ; 
 at the most, one may imagine a Jew Christian, which would be 
 corroborated by the partial acquaintance with Jewish tradition.* 
 
 An attempt has been made to make out, from internal evidence,^ 
 whether the Peschito be the production of more than one author ; 
 but the evidence has at best proved itself very feeble. Of greater 
 importance is the unanimous traditional testimony in favour of a 
 plurality of translators, as aflforded by the passages of Syrian 
 authors already noticed. To these may be added the decisive 
 testimony of Ephraem. On Jos. xv. 28 he remarks : " since 
 tiiose who translated (the passage) into Syriac did not know the 
 meaning of the Hebrew n"^nVt3.'' ^^ ^^^-^ -^^ ^^^® ^^^^ °^ single 
 books he elsewhere, of course, only mentions the individual 
 translator of the respective books (s. opp. I. p. 498, F.) 
 
 The passage of Ephraem just quoted is at the sametime an 
 
 — Still less can it be shewn that the Hexapla was made available, as maintained by 
 Semler, Vorber. der tbeol. Hermeneutik. s. 382 — 394. See as opposed to this Datlie, 
 praef. ad Psalter. Syr. p. 10, sq. Kirsch, praef. ud edit. Pentat. Syr. 
 
 1 Levit. c. 11 ; Deuter. xiv. 13—19 ; Hirzel, 1. cit. p. 127, sqq. 
 
 2 Comp. Gesenius on Isaiali i., p. 86. 
 
 3 Hist. crit. du V. T., p. 272. 
 
 * So Dathe, praef. ad Psalter. Syr. p. XXllI., sq,, whose arguments, however, are in 
 part very feeble. 
 
 o Eichhorn, Einl. II. p. 133. 
 
 fi Opp. t. I., p. 305, B. Credner, 1. cit. p. 2, is wrong in pronouncing this passage to 
 be spurious; comp. v. Lengerke, comment, crit., etc., p. 24. 
 
;U(5 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 evidence of the fact, that the Peschito was formed from the Hebrew 
 original. And this is completely established by an examination of 
 its internal nature. Of all the old translations known, none adheres 
 so faithfully to the original as the one in question. Besides, it in 
 general gives a very happy rendering of the meaning of the 
 ground-text. Where explanations are given, this likewise is done 
 only in cases of immediate necessity, and in the absence of all 
 paraphrastic prolixity. The occurrence of additions or corrections 
 is rare and only exceptional, though some of them must be regarded 
 as interpolations, (e.g. from Ephraem's Commentary), — others as 
 peculiarities of the Syriac idiom. ^ Most of the differences seem to 
 occur in the Psalms, as is evident, not only from the numerous but 
 probably more recent^ inscriptions (in the London Polyglott), but 
 also from the text itself.'^ This has been correctly explained* by 
 the manifold use which was made of the Psalms for liturgical 
 purposes — a practice which would almost inevitably lead to those 
 alterations. 
 
 The Peschito, in respect of contpass, originally embraced only 
 the canonical books of the Old Testament. This, considering its 
 immediate connection with the Hebrew original, follows as a matter 
 of course. In the time of Ephraem Syrus it still existed without 
 the apocryphal additions to Daniel,^ and also without the books of 
 the Maccabees, as is apparent from quotations by Ebedjesu.'^ The 
 postscripts of codices which Pococke has made known, lead to the 
 same result ; he says : nee verosimile est, ullum apocryphorum 
 
 1 Comp. tlie proofs of tbis particularly iu Carpzov, crit. s. p. 626, sq. Gesenius, loc. 
 cit. p. 81, ff. Hirzel, p. 18, sq. Creduer, p. 82, s(j. ' 
 
 2 Tbey especially agree with the interpretations of the Christian Fathers, see Clarissa 
 Pss. XV., Hammaaloth, p. 14. 
 
 "5 So says Dathe, psalter. Syr. p. 129 on Ps. Ivi.) : Tantus est in hoc Ps. dissensus 
 interpretis uostri a textu Hebr., ut vix unuin versum eoJem rnodo legisse inveuiatiir. 
 Omnino in vers. Syr. Psalmoruni id videtur acidisse, — quosdam Pss. scribarum vitiis 
 maf^is quam alios iufectos esse, quosdam plures varias lectiones offerre quam alios, 
 haud tameu difficulter diguoscendas perito horum rerum judici etc. comp. also praef^ p. 
 XXVIl. 
 
 i Comp. e<i. the jRitnale Syr. in Knos, chr Syr. p. 55, sq., which gives also some 
 specimens of readings. 
 
 •5 Comp. Assemani, I., p. 72. Polychrouius (s. Lengerke, d. B. Daniel S. CXII.) 
 flSivai dk Bti (OS Oi>Tos 6 v/xvoi oil Ktirai if toTs sfipuLKol^ v kv Toil cvpiaKoli 
 ftip\ioi9. The history of Sii.sunna is, so far as I know, mentiunid for the first time, 
 and regarded as canonical by Syrian authors, iu the Syriac Letters of Clemens Bomanus, 
 published by Wetstein. Cf. Daniel sec. LXX., Gott. 1774, p. 213. 
 
 'J S. Assemani, III., 1, p. 7, not. 5. 
 
INTFRrRETATION OF TIIK OLD TESTAMENT. 347 
 
 librorum simplici eo stylo inveniii, quippe quibusdam eorum expresse 
 praefigitor, uti primo libro, eum conibrmatum esse ad versionem 
 TMv LXX., et sub finera ejus, eum non reperiri in versione 
 simplici, quod idem reperitur ante Tobiae librum (praef. ad Joel, 
 fol. G.) Still, the Apocrypha must have been translated into Syriac 
 at an early period, since even Ephraem cites them, without however, 
 regarding them as canonical books. ^ 
 
 The Peschito has with the lapse of time, and whilst in the hands 
 of various religious sects, been subjected to various recensions. 
 The edition of the Nestoricuts is first of all known by means of 
 the scholia of Barhebraeus, where it is frequently cited, especially 
 in connexion with the Psalms. It, however, had respect only to 
 interpunctuation. " Nee unquam inveni punctorum et apicura 
 discrepantiara excedere excepto uno forsan altero loco, quern 
 nunc memoria non teneo, in re tamen nullius prorsus momenti.' '" 
 Besides this edition, Barhebraeus cites in connexion with the 
 Psalms, the Karkaph also. This recension was the subject of 
 much dispute until Wiseman examined with greater minuteness 
 the Codd. Vat. Nr. 153, Barberin Nr. 101, which contain its 
 readings, when he arrived at the coDclusion, that it also had for its 
 basis the text of tlie Peschito, though marked by a peculiar 
 interpunctuation allied to Greek orthography, — that in other respects 
 it differed in immaterial points only, from the common text of the 
 Peschito, excepting in a peculiar arrangement of the books. This 
 recension belongs, as the postsci'ipts of the codices shew, to the 
 MonopJnjsites, and owes its origin to the predilection entertained 
 by this Sect for the Greek text. Its name (montana) it probably 
 takes from the place of its origin, the mountain of Sigara, and the 
 Convent of the Jacobites situated there. '^ — Barhebraeus mentions 
 also the oriental and occidental manuscripts of which he had availed 
 himself; and this he seemingly does with a special view to the 
 recensions respectively adopted by both religious sects. ^ 
 
 The earliest edition of the Peschito is that in the Paris Polyglott 
 
 1 S. V Lengerke, de E. S. arte herm. p. 3. Concerning tbe varied arrangement of tlie 
 Biblical books in tbe codices, see Assemani, III., 1, p. 4, sqw Adler, bibl. krit. Eeise 
 s., 103, ff. Wiseman, p. 212, sq 
 
 -' Wiseman, p. 141. Comp. p. 143, 144, 2()8. Rlioile, 1. cit,, p. 9. 
 
 3 S. Wiseman, p. 149 — 257. 
 
 * S. Rbode.l. cit.. p. 8, sq. 
 
'MS HISTORY OF THE 
 
 with the accompanying translation by theMaronite Gabriel Sionita. 
 It is very faulty, and where the manuscripts have proved insufficient 
 the text has been supplied from the Vulgate,^ The reprint in 
 the London Polyglott has been effected by calling in the aid of 
 manuscripts purposely made ; nevertheless, " it was mere ostentation 
 that led Walton so highly to commend the text as constituted under 
 his auspices. The latter has in most respects been rather more 
 negligently attended to than the former."^ Various readings to 
 this were furnished by Herb. Thorndyke (in the 6th Part of the 
 London Polyglott), comp. besides the Remarks of Professor Lee 
 on the collation of manuscripts of the Syriac translation in Winers 
 Neuem Krit. Journal I. 2, s. 149, ff. A really improved edition 
 by the aid of codices, is that of Lee, London 1823-4, comp. 
 Rodiger's review, lib. cit. Nr. 4, s. 28, flf. The Pentateuch by 
 Kirsch and the Psalms by Dathe (Halle 1 768) are edited singly. 
 For works bearing on the criticism of the Peschito, particularly out 
 of Ephraem S., see not. g. s, 97 of de Wette. 
 
 § 84. VERSIONS DERIVED FROM THE PESCHITO. 
 
 To this class belong Arabic translations in particular ; and first 
 of all the translation of the book of Job^ contained in the Paris 
 and London Polyglotts, as likewise that of Chronicles.'* A more 
 recent and very minute examination of the Polyglott- Arabic version 
 has discovered that from the same source has proceeded the 
 translation of the book of Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Kings 
 chap. i. — xi., 2 Kings xii. 1 7 — chap, xxv., Neh. ix. 28 — chap, xiii., 
 and that it was effected by various Christian authors of the 13th 
 or 14th century.^ Comparison with this translation accordingly 
 contributes much that is of importance in the criticism of the 
 Peschito.^ 
 
 Several translations of the Psalms, particularly the edition 
 
 1 S. Walton, proles^., p. 609. Micbaelis, Abb. v. d. syr. Spr. s. 67. 
 ^ Rodiger, H. Lit. Z. Nr. 5. S. 38, comp. Kirscb, peutat. Syr. (Hof. 1787), praef. p. 
 VIII., sq. 
 3 Comp. Micbaelis, Eiul. I. s. 140, ff. Eicbborn II. s. 282, ff. 
 * S. Rodiger, de orig. et ind. Arab. etc. p. 102— 104. 
 5 S. Rodiger, 1. cit. 1, I., c. 2, 1, II., c. 2, 4, 5. 
 ^ S. Rodiger, 1. cit. p. 75, sq. 
 
INTERPRETATION Of THE OLD TESTAMEiNT. 349 
 
 nlleged to have been printed on Mount Libanon (1585 and ICIO) 
 also follow the Peschito/ as likewise the Psalter existing in the 
 British Museum (cod. Nr. 5409.)^ The Pentateuch of Abul- 
 phragius Abdallah Ibn Attajeb also follows the Peschito, but 
 has hitherto remained unknown ;^ as likewise other unprinted 
 Pentateuchs in Paulus, spec, verss. Pentat. Ar. p. 30, sq. 
 
 § 85. ARABIC TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 Three translations made directly from the Hebrew have up to the 
 present time been known, f aj That of the learned Kabbi Saadias 
 Gaon of the 10th century, — paraphrastical, and not without a 
 tincture of Rabbiuism, but a noble monument of the philology 
 of that day, and a valuable aid towards the understanding and 
 elucidation of obscure passages.* We know, as written by him, the 
 translation of the Pentateuch, which was printed in Constantinople 
 as early as 1540 (in the Hebrew character), and afterwards reprinted 
 (in the Arabic character) in the Paris and London Polyglotts, 
 unfair attempts have been made to dispute its authenticity.^ Not 
 only has this been triumphantly defended by Schnlirrer,^ but the 
 publication by Paulus (Jena. 1790, 91, 8,) of the translation of 
 Isaiah, which quite harmonizes^ with the other in respect of style, 
 has established it with still greater clearness. The text of Isaiah 
 in that edition requires much emendation.^ Of the translation of 
 Saadias there has besides been printed only a portion of Job from 
 a M.S. transcribed by Gesenius in Oxford.^ What its original 
 compass was is upon the whole uncertain. ^'^ 
 
 1 See concerning tbis Scbiiiirrer, bibl. Arab. p. 341, sq., 351, sq. 
 '•i S. Doderlein, in tbe Repert. II., s. 159, ff., 170, flF. 
 3 S. Scbiiiirrer, dissertatt. pbilol. p. 203, 
 
 * Conffrningbis cbaracter as a translator, conip. Carpzov, crit. s. p. 646 sq. Gesenius 
 on Isaiab i , p. 90 ff. Kosegarten, ball. Lit. Z. 1822. Nr. 155, p. 365 ff. 
 
 5 O. G. Tycbseii, in Rep. XL, p. 82, 112. 
 
 6 S. dissertatt. p. 191 sqq. 
 
 7 S. Tyebsen, in Micbaelis N. Orient. Bibb VIII., p. 76 ff. 
 
 8 See on tbis tbe writings cited in loc. cit. by Gesenius, and bis, as also Hitzig's 
 Commentaries on Isaiab. 
 
 9 S. Stickel, in Jobi loc. celeberr. c. XIX., 25, 27, de Goele comment. Jen. 1832,) p. 
 29 sq. 
 
 1*J S. concerning tbis Eicbboru's AUg. BibL II., s. 181, ff. 
 
850 HISTOEY OF THE 
 
 (h) The translation of the Polyglott Arabic version has in part 
 proceeded from the Hebrew original itself. So the translation of 
 the Book of Joshua, as confirmed by the postcript/ and that of the 
 following passages : 1 Kings xii., 2 Kings xii. 10, Nehem. i. 9, 
 27.^ The latter passage is (according to Kodiger) the production 
 of a Jewish author ; the translation was, however, at a later period 
 altered, according to the Peschito, by Christian hands ; it in many 
 respects harmonizes with that of the Book of Joshua. The passage 
 from the Books of Kings is the production of a Jew of the 1 1th 
 century. 
 
 {c) The Pentateuch edited by Erpenius (Arabs Erpenii) was written 
 by an African Jew of the 13th century.^ The translation adheres 
 very scrupulously to the masorethic text ; it nevertheless harmonizes 
 with the Targums in avoiding anthropopathical expressions and 
 such like. The style of expression peculiar to it is the vulgar 
 Arabic ; it moreover frequently borrows from the Hebrew expres- 
 sions which are quite foreign to the Arabic.^ 
 
 The Arabic Psalter in the Bodlein Library (s. Schniirrer, in 
 Eichh. Bibl. III., s. 425 fi".) and Genesis in the Mannheim 
 Library (s. Rink, ibid p. 665 ff.), are known only by means 
 of isolated specimens. The translation of Saadias Ben Levi 
 Askenoth of the 16th century (s. Wolf, bibl, Hebr. III., p. 863), 
 in the British Museum (cod. number 5503), which comprehends 
 Genesis, Psalms, and Daniel (s. Doderlein, in Repert II., p. 153, 
 ff.), is likewise not printed. 
 
 § 86. PERSIAN TRANSLATION OF THE PENTATEUCH. 
 
 Already at an early period there seems to have existed a trans- 
 lation of the Old Testament in the Persian language. At least 
 Chrysostom and Theodoret^ speak of such a translation. According 
 to Mairaonides also the Pentateuch was translated into Persic Ions: 
 
 1 S. Maurer, commentary on the Book of Joshua, p. 185. 
 ii Rodiger, 1. cit. 1. I., cap. 3, 1, 11., c. 3. 
 
 3 Pentateuchus Mosis Arabice. LugJ. Bat. 1622, Tlie Leiden Codex is written in 
 the rabbinical character, for which the editor substituted the Arabic. 
 
 * Comp. Erpeu. in the preface of his edition. Hottiuger, thes. philolog. p. 271 sqq. 
 5 The former in the homil. II. in Joaun,, the latter in de curand. Graec. alfect. 1, 6. 
 
INTERFRETAION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 351 
 
 before Muharamecl, and the Talmud seems to bint at the same 
 tbing.^ But the Persian translation of the Pentateuch which has 
 come down to us, and which was printed at first in Constantinople 
 in 1540, and then in the 4th part of the London Polyglott, (the 
 Hebrew character having been used in the former case, and the 
 Persian in the latter), is undoubtedly of later origin.^ This is 
 particularly apparent from the name Babel being rendered Bciffdad 
 (Gen. X. 10) — a proof that it owes its origin to a period at least 
 later than the 8th century.'^ The same thing is confirmed by the 
 internal character of the work. A literal rendering of the Masorethic 
 text predominates, whilst the Hebrew construction is imitated, and 
 many Hebrew expressions are adopted in face even of the Persian 
 idiom. As regards the exegesis, it upon the whole harmonizes 
 with Onkelos, and it does so no less with Saadias.** 
 
 According to the inscriptions in the Constantinopolitan edition 
 too, this translation was made by a Rabbi Jacob, son of Joseph 
 Tawus. Only about the latter name there is diversity of opinion 
 inasmuch as some take it for a proper noun {tawus means peacock 
 in Persic), others for an adjective : Tusensis, ex urbe Persica Tus 
 (where a celebrated Jewish school flourished).^ — Whilst the Persian 
 translations of the Psalter mentioned by Walton (prolegg., p. 694), 
 have proceeded from the Vulgate, a direct translation of the writings 
 of Solomon has meanwhile been discovered by Hassler in Paris 
 codices (Stud. ii. Krit. 1829, s. 469, ff.) 
 
 3. LATIN TRANSLATION. 
 § 87. THE VDLGATE. EARLIEST HISTORY OF THIS TRANSLATION.^ 
 
 Jerome, whilst still engaged with the emendation of the Itala, 
 
 1 S. Zunz, die gottesdient-tL Votr. d. Judeu s.9, Anmerk. 
 
 2 S. Eosenmiiller, de versioue Peutateuobi Persica. Lips. 1813, 4. 
 
 3 Bagdad was built in the year 762 (145 of the Hegira.) Abulfeda, aim. moslem. II., 
 p. 14, 27, Adler. 
 
 * Comp. RoseumiiMer, p. 10, sqq. Lorsbach, Jen. A. Lit. Zeit. 1816. Nr. 58. 
 
 5 Comp. Rosenmuller, p. 4, Lorsbach in lib. cit., p. 459. Bernstein, in Bertholdt's 
 krit. Journ. B. V., p.2l. 
 
 ^ Besides the introductor)' treatises, comp. on this subject, especially Hody, de bibl. 
 text. orig. P. II., Martianay prolegg. in div. Hier. biblioth., Schrbckh, K. G. IX. s. 128, 
 ff., L. van Ess, Pragm. Krit. Gesch. der Vulgata. Tiib. 1824. 
 
852 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 already thought of a new translation to be made directly from the 
 original. His conviction of the wide departure from the ground- 
 text which marked the Alexandrine translation, and his knowledge 
 of the Hebrew language, for which, considering the age in which 
 he lived, he was distinguished, induced him to undertake this work, 
 and confirmed him in his purpose. With Origin for a precedent, 
 he to meet the scrupulosity and prejudice of his contemporaries in 
 regard to such an undertaking, availed himself of the plea, that he 
 was induced to enter upon the work chiefly by motives of polemical 
 opposition to Judaism.^ Several of his friends also encouraged 
 him in this, particularly the learned Bishop Chromatins. After 
 the year 385 he accordingly commenced by translating the books 
 of Samuel and Kings, and though, in the years 392 and 393, he 
 had already completed the Old Testament, it was not till a later 
 period that he edited the greater portion of the translation.^ He 
 had easy access to good Hebrew manuscripts ; he adhered to the 
 exegetical tradition of the Rabbins, his teachers, without thereby 
 precluding the use of other auxiliary means, particularly the older 
 versions ; his herraeneutical principles, moreover, which, upon the 
 whole, are very sound, inasmuch as he censures and avoids extreme 
 literality tending to obscurity on the one hand, and arbitrary 
 deviation from the original on the other, render his work one of 
 the most distinguished productions of ecclesiastical antiquity. Only 
 his want of firmness and independence of character sometimes led 
 him, from fear of innovation, to prefer older authority to his 
 better conviction ; his work suffered injury too from the precipi- 
 tancy which he frequently engaged in it.^ 
 
 This work met with a very unfavourable reception in the Latin 
 church. Misgivings about its want of harmony with the LXX., 
 and the absence of the critical signs in cases of deviation, were 
 expressed by Augustin. Eufin, ho vvever, who imagined he discovered 
 in this innovation, heresy and a corrupting of Scripture became the 
 
 1 Comp. Jahn I. p. 222. A really polemical tendency I however do not discover in 
 Jerome, but only aceommodfition to tbe principles of his time, which he hoped to 
 overcome by a leaning to the earlier customs of the Church. This is especially 
 apparent from the views entertained by Jerome about the non corruption of the Hebrew 
 te.xt by the Jews, in which particular he differed in opinion from his contemporaries. 
 (S. Hody, P. II. cap. 3.) 
 
 2 S. Hody, p. 856—358. 
 
 3 Jahn, s. 223, 324. 
 
INTEIvPKETATION OF 'JHE OLD TKSTAMENT. 303 
 
 vehement opponent of Jerome.^ Of greater moderation was 
 Augustine's judgment, who at a later period, moved by the defence 
 of Jerome, was led to acknowledge the usefulness of his under- 
 taking, and even to make use of the work.^ The translation, 
 however, was sanctioned ecclesiastically firsL^ in Gaul, especially 
 among the Semipelagians, as the testimonies and writings of 
 Cassian, Vincent of Lerius, et al. (in Hody, p. 897, sq.) prove. The 
 writing of Vincent, entitled Commonitorium pro catholicae fidei 
 asitiquitate et universitate adv. profanas omnium haereticorum 
 novitates, so much read and highly respected in the West, may in 
 particular have contributed much to promote the increasing circu- 
 lation and growing authority of the work. This writing in its 
 citations follows Jerome throughout. To this was added subse- 
 quently the weighty authority of Gregory the Great, who in his 
 praef. ad Moral, in Job. explains that the apostolical chair made 
 use of both translations, and that in consequence of this he also 
 availed himself of them in his work. We thus find that even in 
 the time of Isidorus Hispaleusis (died QSd), the translation of 
 Jerome was universally received and its worth acknowleged.* 
 
 But this very circumstance contributed to the corruption of the 
 text. The Itala was used along with Jerome, and thus alterations 
 were effected on the one translation by means of the other. The 
 liturgical use of the translations — a practice which seems to have 
 become estabhshed only by degrees and after successive modifi- 
 cations, rendered this all the more inevitable. The Psalter, 
 therefore, as the book in the older translation chiefly used for 
 liturgical purposes, and best known, continued to be paramount in 
 the Church ; and in general the Psalterium Gallicanum was used. 
 The Apocrypha also, of which Jerome had translated (from Chaldee 
 originals) only Tobit and Judith, were retained according to the 
 
 1 The decision of the Greek church concerning the work of Jerome was far more 
 favourable. The Patriarch Sophronius even translated the translation of the Psalms 
 and Prophets into Greek ; and it is apparently from this source, that the fragments of a 
 Greek version, cited by the Fathers under the designation 6 Si'/ao?, have been derived ; 
 BeeEichhorn I., §207. 
 
 2 Comp. in regard to this Engelstoft, Hieronymus, p. 11'), sq., Van Ess, loc. cit. p. 
 110, ff. 
 
 3 The earlier traces of its having been used (couip. e.</. Hody, p. 338) are but of rare 
 occurrence. 
 
 * Cujus editione generaliter omnes ecclesiae usque quaque utuntur, pro eo quod 
 veracior sit in sententiis et clarior in verbis De oflfic. eccles. [., 12. 
 
 7. 
 
354 HlSiOKY OF THE 
 
 older translation, — Jerome having in the case of Esther, Jeremiah, 
 Daniel, already included the Apocryphal Supplements, taking care, 
 however, to mark them as not canonical (Hody, p. 3o8.) — A like 
 result also must have flowed from the eagerness displayed to amend 
 the later translation by means of parallel passages ; — the Books of 
 Kings and of Chronicles were thus corrected by means of each 
 other, and the like. Alterations and interpolations were introduced 
 into the translation even from Josephus.^ 
 
 § 88. FURTHER HISTORY OF THE VULGATE. 
 
 So early as the time of Charlemagne, the need for a revised 
 edition of so corrupted a text was strongly felt. The celebrated 
 Alcuin was commissioned by the Emperor to undertake this 
 business, and he probably executed it by means of a comparison, 
 not merely of the original text, but also the best manuscripts.^ 
 By this circumstance of reverting anew to the Hebrew ground- 
 text, the Vulgate, however, still more lost the character of its 
 original condition. In the eleventh century it again became 
 necessary to institute a new revision of the text ; and this was 
 undertaken by Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury, in connexion 
 with other learned men of his day. His work, however, did not 
 circulate much beyond England, and in the twelfth century the 
 Romish Cardinal and Librarian Nicolaus (author of the work : de 
 S. S. emendatione) again discovered so much confusion^ that he 
 was obliged to institute a new revision. — Others became inspired 
 with a like zeal, and after the twelfth century were begun the 
 correctoria biblica (epanorthotae), in which the Latin text was 
 furnished with glosses from other MSS , older fathers, and other 
 venerated teachers of the Church ; and these observations were also 
 written in a separate form. — The Sorbonne was the first institution 
 that furnished such work for its students ; and in this it was followed 
 by other learned or religious corporations such as the Dominicans. 
 These correctoria even became the occasion of vehement contentions, 
 for when the Archbishop .of Sens wished to introduce the correc- 
 
 1 Comp. Eichlioru, II. § 335. 
 
 2 Comp. Barou., nnual. eccles. ad a. 778, No. ^7, sq. Hody, p. 407. 
 
 3 He speaks of it in tliis wny : lustraus arinoria iiequibam — venicia exemplaria iuvenire, 
 quia et quae a dociissimis viris dicebauuir correcta — adeo disciepabant, ut paene quot 
 codices lot exemplaria leperirnn. S. Hody, p. 417. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 355 
 
 torium of the Sorbonne into France, the Dominicans interdictedits 
 use to all the members of their order (a.d. 1250.) The correctorium 
 of Paris, consisting of four volumes folio, was in the Abbey of 
 Citeaux until the time of the revolution. Another celebrated 
 correctorium was that of Hugo a St Caro, executed by command 
 of Jordanus, General of the order of the Dominicans, of which 
 there was a transcript in the monastery of St Jacques in Paris, — • 
 a copy is also extant in the hbrary of Niiruberg.^ 
 
 The Vulgate was thus by no means extricated from its state of 
 confusion, when in the second half of the fifteenth century the text 
 began to be printed. This version engaged a large share of 
 attention after the discovery of the art of printing. The first 
 edition having the place and year of its publication specified is that 
 of Mentz 1402. The corruption of the text now became more 
 apparent than ever, and an apparatus criticus was therefe)re 
 formed. AdrianusGumellifurnishedhis Edition — Paris 1501 — with 
 various readings, so likewise Alb. Castellanus (Venet. 1511.) The 
 Franciscan Petrus (Brescia 1490,) and the Editors of the Coraplu- 
 tensian Polyglott, attempted to issue more correct editions ; these, 
 however, were chiefly corrected by means of the original text. 
 So also Eob. Stephauus, who superintended eight editions, and in 
 the first three likewise adopted corrections from the ground-text. 
 The learned Catholics Jean Beuoist (Paris 1541) and Isidor. 
 Clarius (Venet 1542) executed their editions in the same way, and 
 still the latter complained of the numerous errors with which the 
 text abounded.^ 
 
 These efforts at criticism, however, took a different turn after the 
 assembling of the Council of Trent. The fourth of its sittings was 
 devoted to consultations touching the Holy Scriptures. On 20th 
 February 1540 a commission under the presidency of Archbishop 
 Filhol was appointed to report on the state of the text of the Vulgate. 
 On 20th February Cardinal Polus declared that the controversies 
 with Luther were chiefly connected with, and had their origin in 
 the Scriptures, — that no ecclesiastical authority was acknowledged 
 in this respect. — The Commission reported (17 March) that the 
 text was in so dreadful a condition that the Pope alone was 
 
 1 S. Bertholdt, Einl. IT.S.617, tf. Specimens of the Correct, existing iu tlie Paulimim 
 ia Leipzig, see in C'arpzov, crit. s. p. 686, sq. 
 
 - Comp. the more minute details conceruiug the Editions of the Vulgate in Le Long, 
 bibl. s. II. 2, p. f)8, sq. ed. Mascli. 
 
 Z 2 
 
.'i")n HiSTOKV OF THE 
 
 competent to correct it. This report was followed by hot debates. 
 The Dominican Aloysius of Cataua proposed that a new translation 
 be made according to the original text under the superintendence 
 of the Council, and that this translation be pronounced authentic. 
 Isidorus Clarius, on the other hand, wished an amended Vulgate, 
 but declared it to be his opinion tliat Jerome should upon no 
 account be held as inspired. Controversies at last arose even 
 respecting the author of the Vulgate, wlien many denied the 
 authorship of Jerome. 
 
 The result of the discussion was the resolution adopted on 8th 
 April : insuper eadem sacros. synodus considerans non parum 
 utilitatis accedere posse ecclesiae Dei, si ex omnibus Latinis 
 aditionibus, quae circumferuntur, librorum sacrorum, quaenam pro 
 authentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa 
 vetus et vulgata editio, quae longp tot saeculorinn usu in ipsa 
 ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputatiouibus, praedi- 
 cationibus et expositionibus pro authentica habeatur et ut nemo 
 illam rejicere quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat. The setting 
 aside of the original text, or regarding it as inferior to the translation, 
 is certainly not directly expressed here ; but the latter point is 
 clearly implied, inasmuch as the use of a translation is made 
 binding where a reference to the original text alone ought 
 to decide (as " in disputationibus") ; on which account also the 
 absolute authority — here accorded to the Vulgate — demanding the 
 recognition of all parties (" authentica = quam nemo rejicere 
 debet"), is certainly such as ought to belong only to the Scriptures 
 ■ in the original. Hence also this point, as fixed by the Council, 
 did not serve — considering the diflferences that characterized the 
 editions hitherto issued — to invest the translation with the intended 
 authority; and therefore it was resolved : ut posthac sacra scriptura, 
 potissiraum vero haec ipsa vetus et vulgata editio quam emenda- 
 tissirae imprimatur, — an ingenious evasion whereby the corruption 
 of the text was attributed simply to inaccuracy in printing ; and 
 this evil it was assumed might therefore be avoided, by the exercise 
 of greater care, — the proper correction of the Vuigate itself being 
 entirely kept out of view.^ 
 
 When the decision of the Council became known in Italy, it was 
 treated with derision ; but the Court of Rome found itself in a 
 
 1 Comp.on tbis subject Walcb, Einl.iu die polemische Gottesgelabrtheit, s. 628, fF. ; 
 MiulipiuecliP, Systpm des Kiitbolicissuus II., s. 2-16, ft'. 
 
INTEUrUETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 357 
 
 position not a little embarrassing, and the Cardinals Farnesi and 
 Mafl'eji signified tlieir dissatisfaction in the matter. But tlie mistake 
 once committed was henceforth only employed by the Popes as a 
 pretext for new assumptions. The Council hod been as far as possible 
 fi'om charging them with the correction of the Vulgate, and had on 
 this account even nominated a commission for effecting this work, 
 when Paul III. unexpectedly commanded the Council to discontinue 
 their edition and await the decision of the Cardinals; so that there was 
 no more montion of a new edition until the closing of the Council 
 (1563). Meanwhile the theologians of Louvani sought to remove 
 the difficulty, and Joh. Hentenius, under their commission, effected 
 an amended text (according to the 4th Stephanie Edition) Louvain 
 1547. But in the year 1564 Pius TV. interdicted, in the Index 
 librorum prohibitorum, the preface of Isidor Clarius, and began 
 himself with his Cardinals to prepare an edition of the Vulgate, 
 which his successor Pius V. continued. But only under Sixtus. 
 V. in the year 1570 appeared the edition: Biblia sacra vulgatae 
 editionis ad concilii Tridentini praescriptum emendata with a 
 preface by the Pope, in which the correctness of the editionis most 
 highly lauded ; — its faultiness, however, became apparent even 
 before its publication ; and this it was attempted to remedy by 
 erasing, pasting over, and the like. The appearance of any other 
 edition was nevertheless interdicted, " particula ulla vel minima 
 mutata, addita vel detracta." In 1592, however, there appeared a 
 new edition, begun by Gregory XIV., and completed by Clement 
 VIII., which difl'ered much from the Sixtine edition^ — the copies 
 of whicli the Popes endeavoured to the utmost to destroy. The 
 title bears the following inscription : Sixti V. jussu recognita et 
 Clementis VIII. auctoritate edita; and the preface of it is written 
 by Bellarmine.^ In the following year (1593) Clement VIII. 
 prepared another new edition, which sustained many alterations. 
 This has continued to be the normal edition of the Vulgate in the 
 CathoHc Church, of which all later editions may be regarded merely 
 as reprints, wherein even the most evident mistakes are faithfully 
 repeated. '^ 
 
 1 The readings are collected in Thom. .James, bellum papale. London, 1600. Comp. 
 Scbellhorn, amoenitat. litter. T. TV. p. 433, sq. 
 
 ii Coinp. concerning the controversies occasioned by the falsehoods contained in this 
 preface, Eosenuiiiller, Handb. III. p. 262, if. 
 
 3 Latest editions by Leander van Ess. Tiibingen, 1822, Isil, and Frankfurt, 
 1826, 8. 
 
358 HISTOIU' OF THE 
 
 § 89. VERSIONS DERIVED FROM THE VULGATE. 
 
 i. The Anglo-Saxon translation — consisting of the Pentateuch 
 and the book of Joshua, as translated by Abbot Aelfric, of the 
 tenth century, with the later translation of the Psalter — has been 
 made from the Vulgate.^ 
 
 2. The Vulgate has been repeatedly translated into Arabic, and 
 many such translations exist in the Libraries.^ The whole Bible 
 was thus printed at the instance of the Propaganda, Eome 1671,^ 
 and from this edition the London Bible Society have made a 
 reprint (London, 1822.) Another translation, prepai'ed by Bishop 
 Raphael Tuki, which however comprised only a portion of the Old 
 Testament, appeared in Rome 1752.^ 
 
 3. Into Persio also, the Psalter at least has been translated from 
 the Vulgate. Walton was acquainted with two manuscripts of this 
 translation, which "were the production of the beginning of the 
 seventeenth century (Prolegg. p. C94.) 
 
 § 90. TRANSLATIONS OF THE TENTATEUCH, ACCORDING TO THE 
 SAMARITAN RECENSION. 
 
 As the edition of the Pentateuch peculiar to the Samaritans 
 was not an independent work, so their translations also were 
 characterised by a leaning to the works of the Jews, whose eager 
 imitators they were. When the Greek translations of the Old 
 Testament were begun in the second century, an impulse to similar 
 efforts seems to have developed itself among the Samaritans also. 
 The tradition preserved by the Christian Fathers, that Symmachus 
 had prepared his translation, in opposition to a Samaritan transla- 
 tion,^ points to a connection in itself very probable. The Fathers 
 of the third and fourth centuries also mention a Greek translation 
 of this kind as extant among the Samaritans under the name of to 
 
 1 Not from the LXX., as was incorrectly assumed; see De Wette, Eiul, § 73. 
 ■i S. Adler, krit. Reise, S. 177, ff. 
 
 3 S. Sclmurrer, bibl. Arab. p. ^64, sq. 
 
 4 See concerniug this Aurivillius, dissertatt. p. 308, sq. ed. Michaelis, Schelling im 
 Repert. X. s. 154, flf., Roseiimiiller, Handb. III. s. 63, it'., Schnurrer, bibl. Ar. p. 384, sq. 
 
 5 See concerning this Hody, de bib), text. orig. p. 536. 
 
IXTERPRETATfON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 359 
 
 XajxapeiTLKov. The existence of a proper connected translation 
 of this kind lias been doubted ; it rather appears, however, that the 
 author of it participated in the notions inimical to the LXX.. at 
 that time prevalent, and that he too wished to undertake a correction 
 of it, whence he adhered more or less closely to the LXX., intro- 
 duced explanations in the case of more obscure passages, or 
 improved it in his own way.^ 
 
 A second translation is that written in the Samaritan dialect, 
 whose age is not known. For, the information obtained by means 
 of the most recent correspondence with this people concerning a 
 certain Nathanael as the author, is too uncertain to be much 
 depended on.^ It is, upon the whole, a very liteial rendering of 
 the text, but quite in the manner of the Targums ; it, like lliem, is 
 marked by a scrupulous paraphrasing of the Divine name, — an 
 avoiding of anthropopathies, — an applying of euphemisms.^ A 
 peculiarity so really Jewish and characteristic of the Targums, 
 betrays a use of these in the preparation of the Samarilan 
 version ; and this ought to have been taken into account by 
 those who would have this translation regarded as an inde- 
 pendent work.'* For certainly its harm.ony with Onkelos is in 
 itself not such as to justify the conclusion that the Samaritan 
 translation is based on that of Onkelos f on the contrary there 
 is really considerable difference between the two, and the circum- 
 stance already noticed only points to an influence emanating 
 from Jewish theology as laid down in the Targums and rperating 
 among the Samaritans. The discrepancy just noticed is however 
 sufficiently explained, when we accord to the Greek-Samaritan 
 translation a higher age than to the one in question ; and since 
 both remarkably harmonise in some respects,^ the assumption 
 may not be unfounded that the Samaritan translation was dependent 
 on the other, and at the same time enjoyed the benefit of the 
 Targums/ 
 
 1 S. Eichhorn, I. p. 559, ff . who very properly disputes tlje assumption of Winer (de 
 versione Pent. Saiuarit. p. 9), tliut tliis translation had proceeded from the Samaritan 
 translation. 
 
 2 S. Gesenius, de Pentat. JSamar. p. 18. Winer, I. cit. p. 8, sq, 
 
 3 Comp Winer, 1. cit., p. 60, sq 
 ^ As Winer, I, cit., p. 64, sq. 
 
 5 As e.g. Eichhorn will have it, IF., p. 326. 327, 
 
 6 S. Winer, l.cit., p. 9. 
 
 7 This translation is printed in the Paris and London Poly-l. For pHrtieiiliirs con- 
 cprning rodires and pditions, see in Winer, p. 10, sq. 
 
8(50 IIISTOIIY OF THE 
 
 Of a later date than either of those translations is the 8a viari tan- 
 Arabic translation of Abu. Said^ of the eleventh or twelfth century. 
 It is written in bad Arabic, and is characterized by a strong 
 leaning to the Hebrew text and even phraseology — the Samaritan 
 translation and that of Saadias having besides been made available 
 in its preparation. The latter indeed was the occasion of this 
 Arabic translation, since the other may have been in the hands of 
 the Samaritans, until after the decay of their language they became 
 possessed of the translation of Abusaid. In two Paris codices 
 this translation is furnished with Scholia, which in the preface are 
 alleged also to have proceeded from Abusaid, but whose internal 
 character betokens another author.^ This translation has not yet 
 appeared in print as a whole ; only detailed descriptions and 
 specimens of it have been communicated.^ 
 
 II. HISTORY OF THE EXEGETICAL TREATMENT OF THE OLD 
 TESTAMENT IN THE GENE;RAL. 
 
 § 91. PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 
 
 Interpretation embraces a wider circle than the history of 
 versions, though both are very closely connected. For interpre- 
 tation, viewed on its objective side, is nothing else than the 
 justification of translation, and vindicating the quality of the latter, 
 and the spirit in which it has been executed. Viewed subjectively, 
 however, interpretation shows us the manner in which an epoch 
 brings its peculiar mode of thought into union with Scripture, and 
 what influences and treatment the latter has been exposed to. 
 Whilst, then, in the history of versions only those possess a special 
 interest for our object in which the more ancient exegetical 
 tradition, approximating to the original sources is represented, the 
 history of exegises comes in as supplementary to this, since it 
 informs us of the peculiarity in the epoch or tendency which bears 
 upon the subject. 
 
 1 However the name clianges in tbe prefaces of the Paris manuscripts : comp. de Sacy, 
 in Eichh. Bibl. 3, p. 6, ff., 10, p. 5, and Eichhorn, EinL II., p. 265, ff. 
 •i S. Eichhorn, p. 271, ff. Gesenius, 1. cit., p. 20. 
 
 3 Comp. Gesenius, 1. cit., p. 20,21. 
 
 4 Comp. Eichhorn, p. i^67— 270. «• 
 
INTERrPvETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 301 
 
 Our historical survey must here be restricted to the more 
 comprehensive departments, especially such as appear in history as 
 constituting epochs. Comp. Buddeus, Isagoge bistor. theolog. ad 
 Theologiam universam singulasque ejus partes 2 Voll. Lips. 1730. 
 Eosenmiiller, historia interpretationis libr. sacr. in ecclesia Chris- 
 tiana 5 voll. Hildburg, 1795 — 1814. Meyer, Geschichte der 
 Schrifterkliirung seit der Wiederhcrstellung der Wissenschaften. 
 5 Bande. Gott. 1802—1808. 
 
 § 92. ANCIENT JUDAISM. 
 
 Immediately after the closing of the canon we find Scripture 
 interpretation in vogue among the Jews ; and this assumed different 
 characters according to the differences in Judaism itself. First of 
 all peculiar is the supreme attachment of the Alexandrian Jews to 
 the dogmatico-speculative contents of Scripture, aud the develop- 
 ment of these according to their philosophic systems. Though 
 this philosophy was far removed from the faith of Judaism, there 
 remained all the more the necessity of allying it by an outward 
 bond to the letter of Scripture. For this the allegorical interpretation 
 served as a vehicle, which must be viewed not merely as an 
 imitation of the hellenic custom, but as having its deeper source in 
 the entire tendency of the Alexandrian mind, and its internal 
 alienation from what is properly Hebrew. Hence to renounce 
 entirely the literal sense of Scripture^ was quite accordant with this 
 species of Judaism ; and though the more cautious acknowledged 
 its existence, they assigned it a subordinate place, and thus 
 depreciated the proper interpretation, into the place of which the 
 arbitrary allegorising had been raised. The beginnings of this 
 attempt are seen in Aristobulus, its culminating point in Philo,^ 
 whilst in the Apocryphal writers it hardly appears.^ 
 
 Josephus shows the mode of interpretation followed by the 
 Hellenists of Palestine. With him there is far more of respect 
 for the historical contents of Scripture. His design, however, 
 
 1 A'* happened in the time of Philo, who, however, opposed it ; see Philo de emignit. 
 Abraham, p. 430. 
 
 2 Comp. Plank, depriiicipiiset cansis interpretationis Pliilon-allegoricae. Gott. 1816. 
 
 3 See Dopke, Hermcneutik d. NTI. Schriltst. s. 11«, ff. 
 
862 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 is pre-eminently apologetic, rather than historico-critical, and 
 though he is a copious source of explanations of passages, yet he is 
 here also fettered by uncertain tradition and arbitrary embellish- 
 ments. He was deficient in thorough knowledge of the Hebrew, 
 and he contributes but very little to the pliilosophical understanding 
 of Scripture.^ 
 
 To the proper Palestinian Judaism the study of the legal portion 
 of Scripture constituted the main object of attention. Hence 
 Pharisaism aimed supremely at a fxera aKpi^eia^ e^rj'yeiadac ra 
 vofXLiJba? With them also, in consequence, the ordinances they 
 introduced could not be grounded on Scripture, otherwise than by 
 means of allegory and accommodation. It is true they held fast 
 the simple literal meaning, but still as one simply adopted from 
 tradition. Hence even with the Talmudists there is not found an 
 interpretation of their own so much as a development of proofs of 
 their hevrepwaei,^ from Scripture, since they proceed upon the 
 principle that for every question in this respect there is an answer 
 expressly in the Pentateuch. For this, however, they had much 
 sounder hermeneutical rules than those of the Alexandrians. The 
 Talmudists carefully distinguish the literal meaning of a passage 
 (^^\2j^, sensus innatus), though as to this they sometimes differ 
 (see e. yr. B. Sanhedrin, f. 100, 2) from^the sensus illatus (^rj-i-f^, 
 pf^jj'^'^.) The former is again twofold, according as the writer 
 himself meant his words to be taken properly (tOtTQ)' <^r improperly, 
 having in view another or figurative sense (t^D, as in symbols, 
 parables, &c.) The sensus illatus is either drawn according to the 
 common hermeneutical rules out of the words, so that no violence 
 is offered to them — the combining of an object with that of the 
 text, such as the latter may, according to the hermeneutical rules, 
 be held to intimate (\y^"7), or it is a purely arbitrary combination, 
 a mere accommodation without any respect to hermeneutics (f7;2"1-) 
 Now, to bring out these various meanings it was in the first 
 instance necessary to investigate all individual expressions, forms, 
 and clauses, and there are in respect of this to be found in 
 the Talmudists some admirable observations, which deserve more 
 respect than has commonly been paid to them.^ It was, however, 
 
 1 Comp. Geseuius, (Jesch d. Hebr. Spr. s. 80, if. 
 
 ^ Jos. de Bell. .Tud. II. viii. 14; Antiqq. XVII. 2,4. 
 
 2 Conip. Wa'iner, Antiqq. Hebr. I. 35S, sq. 
 
INTEKPKKTATION OF THE OLD TESTAMP^NT. 303 
 
 easy also in this way, as, on the one hand, by means of herraeneu- 
 tics, the traditional ordinances were combined with the written law, 
 so, on the other, to retain the latter in its correct literal signification, 
 and to preserve the consciousness of its original meaning ever 
 alive. ^ 
 
 We thus find in ancient Judaism two tendencies, differing greatly 
 in a hermeneuiical respect (their diff'erence here running parallel 
 with their difference in reference to the treatment and constitution 
 of the text) ; the one, the Alexandrino-gnostic, which, from a 
 speculative egoism, views the results of philosophical abstraction as 
 essentially sustained by the words of Scripture, treats these results 
 as forming with it one inseparably connected whole, and esteems 
 Scripture, and the interpretation thereof, of value only as it stands 
 in, or may be brought into, harmony with the philosophical modes 
 of treating the individual subjectivity : the other, the Palestino- 
 orthodox tendency, which, springing from a firm adherence to the 
 letter of the written word throughout, holds fast by it as an historical 
 element, but, at the same time, regards it as one which possesses a 
 significancy for the historical development of the present, — that all 
 in the latter must be rel'erred back to the former, so that the 
 reverence-imposing halo that surrounds the past and its documents 
 should shed at least a glimmer on subsequent time, conscious of 
 its destitution. In the former tendency we have a depreciation of 
 history, and of that which is borne up by it as of permanent 
 importance, and an over-estimation of the present, of the wisdom 
 of the age ; in the latter, on the contrary, we have a revered 
 retrogression to the historical monument, to which it was considered 
 that special respect was paid when an extension of the law was 
 based upon it, though in this the consciousness of the more or less 
 of self-will, and of what was foreign [to the original document] in 
 that extension, and by consequence the more or less closeness of 
 adherence to the pure word of Scripture was never lost. 
 
 1 Hence it is an entirely perverted view when these henneiieutical distinctions are 
 treated as only productive of confusion in the department of Talmudic exegesis, as e.gr. 
 by Dopke, 1. c. s. 138, ff. 
 
UG4 IJISTORY OF THE 
 
 § 93. EXEGESIS OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 We possess no interpretations of the Old Testament properly so- 
 called belonging to the earliest age of the Church ; nevertheless 
 what does eji^ist here in detached portions is so far of interest as it 
 shows how strongly the attention of the Fathers was directed 
 towards bringing the dogmatical contents of the Old Testament 
 into accordance with the Christian consciousness. The period 
 immediately succeeding that of the Apostles understood the Old 
 Testament in a quite popular way ; but by degrees the polemical 
 position of the Christians towards Judaism begat a more scientific 
 consideration of it. Since, however, the peculiar historical position 
 of the Old Testament was too remote in point of time, and they 
 were also not fit to appropriate in a living form the ancient to 
 themselves, or to enter into it historically, their exegetical 
 method of treating it remained an almost purely apologetico-dog- 
 matical. 
 
 In this way arose in the ancient Church a twofold exegesis as 
 especially predominant. It was found that the grammatico-histo- 
 rical interpretation was not fully satisfactory, and hence it was 
 exchanged for the carnal Jewish method, by which means the 
 Christian element in the Old Testament came to be dispossessed. 
 Hence preference was given to the allegorical and typical interpre- 
 tation, by which an affinity was created with the Alexandrian 
 Judaism,^ though a meaning more or less sound, according to the 
 dogmatical stand-point assumed, was at the same time communicated 
 to this mode of treating Scripture. The Messianic passages 
 especially engaged the notice of the early church teachers (as in the 
 case of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, &c.), in their treatment 
 of which, amidst much that is true, there is also much that is 
 arbitrary of an allegorical and typical kind. Ti)e principle that all 
 the New Testament is contained in the Old, as Tertullian for 
 instance maintains (adv. Marcion. 1. IV.) in opposition to those who 
 found nothing of the New Testament in the Old, has no doubt its 
 
 1 As for instance in tUe Letters of Barnabas, who manifests a striking accordance 
 Willi Pliilo. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAlvIEXT. 805 
 
 pvofonnd tiutli, but it led to the transposition of what belonged to 
 the Old and New Testaments respectively, subverted the historical 
 basis of both, and so prepared the way for an objective unfounded 
 arbitrariness of explanation. 
 
 Opposed to this method was that followed by the Anti-Judaic 
 Gnostics. With them we find a stringent literal mode of explana- 
 tion ; which, however, became perverted from their misapprehending 
 the thoughts, and clinging exclusively to the expressions, and 
 then founding on this purely external mode of treatment a system 
 of attacks upon the Old Testament. The most remarkable document 
 of such a coarsely literal and carnal exegesis is Marcion's Antitheses, 
 in which dogmatical constraint permits no more than to gnaw at 
 the shell without even having an inkling of the kernel of the Old 
 Testament, but which is so far interesting as it is the forerunner of 
 a more recent and not less outward exegesis.^ — More peculiar is the 
 method of Valentinus and his school (especially of Heracleon), with 
 whom there is found an effort to dissever the divine from the human, 
 not only in the Prophets, but also in the Pentateuch ;^ only that 
 here again all is disposed of in one-sided a priori assertions, without 
 penetrating to the historical stand-point, so that the most arbitrary 
 separations are assumed where the union of the human and divine, 
 the stamping and glorifying of the latter, in the former should have 
 been acknowledged. — In the same category may be placed also 
 other phenomena, such as the assertions of the falsifications of the 
 Old Testament in the Clementines, and among the Manicheeans. 
 
 A special and in its influence on the whole succeeding age 
 remarkable tendency was assumed by the Old Testament exegesis 
 in the Alexandrian school. Here first appeared scientific inter- 
 pretations, of which mention is made as early as by Pantaenus,^ 
 but which are chiefly known to us through Clement of Alexandria 
 and Origen, who have not only communicated their hermeneutical 
 principles, but also a portion of their interpretations. lii the 
 hermeneutics of this school, there predominated the reference of the 
 historical to the ideal, inasmuch as ignoring what was peculiar to, 
 
 1 Comp. Habn, Antitheses Marcionis Gnostici. Eegiora. 1823. 
 
 2 SeeNeander, K. Gesch. TIi. TI. Abt. 2. [Torrey's Translation, vol. ii., p. 135— 
 146, Clarke's For. Theol. Lib— Tr.] 
 
 3 Comp. Hieronymus, Catal. Scrip, ecc!. c. 36. Moslieim, de reb. gest. Christ, ante 
 Constant. M. p. 300. 
 
36 () HISTORY OF THE 
 
 individuals in the revelation, it was attempted to generalize and 
 spiritualize whatever was special. Origeu particularly, setting out 
 from the position that in general wherever it is possible the letter 
 is to be retained with the spirit, and that consequently much 
 that is didactic (as the Decalogue) must be taken only in the proper 
 sense, endeavoured to determine more exactly the limits within 
 which in interpretation the one and the other was to be taken only 
 spiritually. But in doing this he substituted a fluctuating sub- 
 jective feeling for objective reasons, and acted consequently very 
 prejudicially towards especially the historical portion of the Old 
 Testament, since here he encountered principally what was unin- 
 telligible and puzzling, which he endeavoured to remove by means 
 of allegory. He sought also always to make out the psychological 
 meaning inhering in the literal, and to bring it into harmony with 
 the Trichotomy of human nature,^ without considering how this 
 dividing and severing was at variance with God's word as a concrete 
 revelation. Origen wrote in his threefold manner Scholia {arj/xe- 
 t(oaei<;) Commentaries {rofxoi) and Homilies on the Old Testament, 
 but only a very small part of his entire works have reached us, 
 though much has been borrowed from him and used by later 
 writers." 
 
 In opposition to the school of Origen arose the Antiochenian, in 
 which the historical exegetical tendency of the oriental Church 
 predominated. To this belong Theodorus Heracleota,^ Eusebius of 
 Emesa, Diodorus of Tarsus, who, according to Suidas, commented on 
 the whole Old Testament, and his disciple Theodorus Mopsuestenus, 
 and his younger brother Polychronius, Bp. of Apamaea. From 
 the writings of the two latter known to us,* we may obtain a pretty 
 correct notion both of the good and the bad in this tendency. 
 Justly opposed to the allegorical interpretation, and renouncing its 
 
 1 [/«. tlie tbreefold division of man's nuture into Body, Soul, and Spirit, <Te.>,u«, 
 
 2 See the Literature in Gieseler K. G. I., 231, 242. [Davidson's Trans. I., 232, 243. 
 -Tb.] 
 
 3 He wrote a Commentary on the Psalms (Hieron. catal., c. 90) and is also cited in 
 the Catenen on Isaiah (Montfaucon Coll. nov. Pat. IL, 350) 
 
 * The Commentt. of Theodorus on the Minor Prophets, partially contained in A. 
 Maii collect, n. Vet. Scriplorum T. I. and in full in T. VI. (Rom. 1832). Conip. Sieffert, 
 de Theodor. Mops. Vet. Test, sobrie interpretandi. Kegiom. 1827. On Polychr. 
 Comment on Uaniel see Ang. Mai 1. c. 1. 1. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THK OLD TESTAMENT. 367 
 
 arbitrariness, this system strove to carry out the herraeneutical 
 principle that every passage can have but one sense, and thus to 
 restore its rights to historical and grammatical investigation. On the 
 other hand, however, it did not escape the danger hence easily arising 
 of overlooking the dogmatical contents of Scripture, reducing its 
 peculiarity to something general and human (of which e. gr. the 
 explanation of the Song of Solomon by Theodor. Mops, may serve as 
 a specimen), and employing a self-seeking censure and arbitrary 
 pseudo-criticism. Hence tlviugh the novelties of this school met 
 with but little of a thorough and learned opposition, yet they con- 
 travened the orthodox dogmatical consciousness of the age, and 
 their discrepancy with the Church and the Church doctrines 
 became ever more and more apparent. The properly Christian 
 point of vi6w was here most properly a Jewish, under which name 
 those who thought differently, as for instance Theodoret, assailed 
 it.2 
 
 Whilst the most eminent Dogmatists and thinkers, even when 
 not attached to the theological system of Origen, 'nevertheless 
 followed his exegetical method as that best agreeing with the 
 Church doctrine, as Eusebius of Caesaria, Athanasius, Basilius, 
 Cyrillus Alex., the two Gregories,^ others adopted a middle path. 
 To this class belong, for instance, the schools which flourished in 
 Mesopotamia and their offshoots, in which an attempt was made 
 to combine the grammatical and literal with the spiritual ; and as 
 especial regard was paid to the first of these, more valuable results 
 forexegesis have proceeded from this quarter than from theOrigenian 
 Exegetes. In this spirit are written the comments of Ephraera 
 Syr, Theodoret, and Chrysostom.* The interpreters give usually 
 first the historical and then the spiritual interpretation. For the 
 Old Testament Ephraem and Theodoret chiefly afford help, and 
 that not merely the former for the Peschito, and the latter for the 
 LXX. ; but both even for the original text, since though they do 
 not comment directly on it, yet they supply excellent historical and 
 linguistic illustrations of it, and in general hit the truth. — Of the 
 
 1 As is evidenced by the history of Messianic interpretation in this scliool ; see 
 Heugstenberg, Cliristol. I. i. 354. 
 
 •2 As also there is an historical relation of dependence from tlie exegesis of the Jews 
 not to be overlooked. See v. Leugerke de Ephr. Wyr. arte herm., p. 63, sq. 
 
 3 See V. Lengerke, 1. c. p. 55, sq. 
 
 4 See V. Lengerke, 1. c. cap. 3. 
 
2'6H HISTOliV OF THE 
 
 Latin Church we name but two, but these from their very difFereDce 
 from each other pecuHarly important interpreters — Jerome and 
 Augustine, whose relation to each other Luther has happily described 
 as that of the grammatical to the dogmatical interpretation. 
 Jerome was unquestionably the one of all the Fathers who brought 
 to the study of the Old Testament the largest amount of learning 
 and diligence. His writings are the most copious mine for the 
 rabbinical tradition of his age, the critical state of the text, the 
 versions, older patristic interpretations, and other important histo- 
 rical notices. But he is totally deficient in independence, as an 
 interpreter be wants decision, and be aims chiefly at the work of 
 "compilation, in which, however, he has usually selected the best. 
 Most sadly is his acuteness at fault in regard to the dogmatical and 
 ethical parts of Scripture. In this respect Augustine as far 
 surpasses him as he surpasses Augustine in real learning and 
 hermeneutical principle.^ As respects the belp rendered to exegetical 
 science by means of Archaeology, the most valuable portion of 
 patristic literature is the work of Eusebius irepl rSiv tottlkcov 
 ovofMaTtov ev ttj Oeia <ypa(f>fj wliich was translated with alterations 
 into Latin by Jerome.^ 
 
 By the one-sided dogmatical tendency of the Fathers there had 
 been formed especially in reference to the Old Testament, an 
 exegetical tradition, beyond the rigid retention of which the most 
 eminent teachers did not venture, and the following of which became 
 ultimately the Shibboleth of orthodoxy.^ From this came a 
 thoroughly dependent and dead character into Exegesis. Excerpts 
 and repetitions of what had been said before were regarded as 
 sufficient. The more theology decayed the less did exegesis 
 flourish. It was ever more and more a mere making of Caiejiae., 
 from which the slight element of originality, found in the earlier 
 ones as that of Procopius of Gaza in the 6th century,* came 
 gradually to disappear.^ What marked all those, especially in the 
 
 1 Comp. Engelstoft, Hierou. interpres, criticns esegeta, apologeta etc. riaun. 1787. 
 Clausen, Augustiu. S. S. interpres. Hann. 1827. 
 
 2 See on this Eeland, Palestina p. 467, sqq. 
 
 3 Seee.gr. the decisions of the Council of Sirmium (against Photinus, in the year 357) 
 ap. Harduin, coll. concil. I., p. 702, sq. 
 
 * Comp. Ernepti, comm. de Proc. G. commentariis Graec. in Heptateuchum et Cjnt. 
 ineditis. Lips. 1785. Eosenmiiller, 1. cit. IV., p. 234, sq. 
 5 See on the Catenae Fabricius, bibl. Gr. VII., p. 727, sqq. The best known of these 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. SOU 
 
 later scholastic age, was that only special theological opinions on 
 speculations were outwardly appended to Scripture, without even an 
 attempt at exegetical elucidation. 
 
 In the middle ages only a few, as Raymund Martini, were 
 acquainted with Hebrew, and of these only one or two,, especially 
 Nicolaus de Lyra, did anything for Scripture interpretation. The 
 Postills of the last named writer, which were enlarged, and in 
 many places corrected by Paulus Burgensis, had for their object 
 to bring out the literal meaning of the text, and they frequently 
 communicate rabbinical remarks. He exerted an undoubted 
 influence on the exegesis of the Reformers.-^ As a condensation 
 and summary of the current interpretations the Glossaries, parti- 
 cularly the Glossa ordinaria of Walafried Strabus (died 849), and 
 the Glossa interlinearis of Anselmus Laudenensis of the 12th 
 century, are worthy of notice. The Commentary of Rabanus 
 Maurus demands especial notice ; it extends over the whole Old 
 Testament, and contains, besides interpretations suited to the spirit 
 of the age, historical and antiquarian observations (from Josephus, 
 Jerome, &c.) ; it makes much use also of earlier interpreters. 
 
 §1 9i. INTERPRETATIONS OF THE RABBINS. 
 
 From the period when learned grammatical studies had com- 
 menced among the Rabbins, there arose also during the i2th 
 century a style of interpretation specially deserving notice here, in 
 which the grammatico-historical method was allowed to mingle with 
 what principally accorded with the earlier exegetical tradition. Of 
 interest is the defence by Abenezra of the principles of this style, 
 on the one hand against the simply speculative and dogmatical 
 tendency which repudiated exegesis properly so caHed, and satisfied 
 itself with allegory, and on the other hand against the Karaitic 
 method, in which the exegetical tradition was opposed.^ Abenezra 
 is himself one of the most independent, profound, and learned of 
 
 are the Catena on the Octateuch and the Books of Kings, published at Leipsic in 1772, 2 
 vols, foil ; the Cat. of Nicetas on .Job, Loud. 1637; that on the Psalms by Corderius, 
 Antw. 1643, 3 vols. ; that on the Song of Solomon by Meursius, Lugd. Bat. 1617, &c. 
 
 1 Comp. Buddeus, 1. c. p. 1430, sq. 
 
 2 See E. Simon, Hist. Crit. V. T. 1. III. c. 6. 
 
 2 A 
 
370 HISTORY OF THE 
 
 these Rabbins, whilst Jarchi attaches himself chiefly to what is 
 traditional, and comments after the manner of the Talmud. In 
 these, as in almost all the Jewish commentators, there is much that 
 is keenly polemic against Christianity.^ Other prized Eabbinical 
 commentaries are those of David Kimchi,^ in which philological 
 explanations are combined with the citation of many opinions, and 
 the discussion of controverted points in theology ; so that they are 
 very copious.^ Maimonides has set forth some useful hermeneutical 
 rules in his well-known work Moreh Nebochim (ed. Buxtorf, fil. 
 Basil, 1029, in Latin.) After him Tanchuma of Jerusalem wrote 
 commentaries in Arabic on the Old Testament, which are deposited 
 in the Bodleian library at Oxford,^ and are of great value, 
 especially in a grammatical and lexicographical respect. Levi Ben 
 Gerson (died 1870) wrote commentaries on the greater part of the 
 books of the Old Testament, which are in Buxtorf "s rabbinical Bible.^ 
 Isaac Abarbanel (died 1508), is a very prolix commentator, full of 
 controversial questions, which he propounds and solves in a 
 scholastic manner ; his commentaries have been printed separately.® 
 Salomo Ben Melech of the 16th century, in his Michlal Josephi 
 (Constantin., 1685), follows for themost part Kimchi, but restricts 
 himself principally to philological observations, in which however 
 there is much that is useful.^ Moses Alshech, at the end of the 
 1 6th century, wrote a commentary on the whole Old Testament 
 (see Buxtorf, Bibl. Rabb., p. 400) of which some portions have been 
 printed separately. On account of the obscure philosophical style 
 of writing of many of these Rabbins, the more famous of them have 
 in turn been supplied with explanations (Biurim).^ 
 
 1 Comp. Geseuius, Comment, z. Jes. I. 119, ff. 
 
 2 Buxtorf bas given in bis Rabbin. Bib. tbe comments of the three Rabbins named _ 
 Jarchi bas been edited in a Latin translation by Breithaupt. Goth. 1710, sq. 3 vol!. 
 
 3 Comp. Gesenius, 1. c. 123, if. 
 
 4 Comp: Uri, Catal. Bibl. Bodlej. p. 16, Pococke edited specimens of these in several 
 of his veritings : also Scbnurrer, Spec. Tarcbum. hieros. Tiib. 1791; Gesenius in bis 
 Comment, z. Jes. and Tbes. 1. Hebr. ; Rbdiger, de Arab. Libr. V. T. Histor. interpr. 
 
 5 For censures on him as frequently representing the historical as a vision on pro- 
 phetical representation, see Bartolocci, Bib. Rabb. III. 661, IV. 6. 
 
 6 See Wolf, Bibl. Hebr. I. 627, III. 540, IV. 875 ; Kiicher, Nova Bibl. Heb. I. 72. 
 
 7 The Commentary on Jonas, with a Latin translation by Fabricius, Gott., 1792, 
 
 8 Comp. Hottinger, Bibl. Orient., p. 6, sq. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 371 
 
 § 95. MODERN EXEGESIS. 
 
 The separation of Romanism and Protestantism introduced two 
 different kinds of exegesis ; for whilst, on the one hand, the Council 
 of Trent declared, " ecclesiae est judicare de vero sensu et inter- 
 pretatione sacrarum scripturarum" (sess. IV. deer. 3.) ; the evangelical 
 theologians, on the other hand, maintained the right of interpreting 
 Scripture by themselves, by the aid of the Holy Ghost, and in 
 pursuance of this, laboured to settle sound hermeneutic rules. 
 Among the Catholic interpreters, as a consequence, the method of 
 interpretation already predominant in the Church was retained, 
 according to which Scripture was explained in various senses, and 
 the Catholic dogmatical theology, particularly controverted doctrinal 
 points, continually introduced. The majority of the commentators 
 of this Church, consequently, labour under an unprofitable mass 
 of allegorical, moral, and such like explanations, which for the 
 proper understanding of Scripture are useless, as the works of 
 Cornelius a Lapide, Tirinus, find others, sufficiently show. Only a 
 very few, such as Vatablus, form an illustrious exception to this 
 charge. 
 
 Among the Reformers, on the contrary, new life was communi- 
 cated to Scripture interpretations, and the comprehensive under- 
 standing of it, including that of the Old Testament, was greatly 
 forwarded. The practical vital interest in the divine word which 
 lay at the basis, and formed the hinge of the work of church 
 reformation, led to the unfolding of this in all its fulness, truth, and 
 glory, and in all its relations. Whilst, on the one hand, the practical 
 understanding of Scripture received so mighty an impulse from 
 Luther's translation of the Bible, evangelical theology, on the other, 
 vindicated for itself that title by, in the first instance, basing the 
 explanation of Scripture on right principles, and then building a 
 dogmatical superstructure on the foundation of a sound exegesis. 
 Among the Exegetes of the Reformation, Calvin stands unques- 
 tionably first, and for the Old Testament his commentaries constitute 
 an epoch. Bringing to his task well-grounded, and, for his 
 age, massive learning, he especially furthered the historical and 
 psychological element of interpretation, and with great penetration 
 united therewith the dogmatical development. The most successful 
 
 2 A 2 
 
372 HISTOIIY OF THE 
 
 of his commentaries are those on the Pentateuch and the Psalms, 
 which books especially harmonise with the idiosyncracy of the 
 great Eeformer.^ On the track of Calvin the reformed church 
 followed with brilliant results. The Old Testament was translated 
 and annotated by Junius and Piscator ; Oecolampadius, Pellicanus, 
 Seb. Miinster, Drusius, and others, distinguished themselves as a 
 body by philological and Eabbinical lore. With all of them there 
 is a close combination of dogmatics with exegesis, yet in such a 
 way as that the latter does not suffer, but has preserved to it 
 its independent scientific character. To the Lutheran Church 
 belong, in this department, chiefly Brentius, Melancthon, Fagius, 
 Osiander, &c. For these and other commentaries may be consulted 
 the collections of Marlorat in the Expositio CathoL Ecclesiastica, 
 the Critici Sacri (Lond. 1660, 9 voll. ; Amstelod. 1698, 9 voll., 
 Francofurti, 1696, 7 voll. ; and two supplementary voll. 1700, 
 1701), and Poole's Synopsis Criticorum aliorumque s. s. inter- 
 pretum. 
 
 A new and diversified impulse has been communicated to the 
 Exegesis of the Old Testament since the seventeenth century. The 
 enlarged knowledge of languages, and the cultivation of auxiliary 
 real sciences, furthered the scientific development, whilst the more 
 refined taste of the age promoted the elegance of interpretation. 
 Men like Grotius and Clericus explained the Old Testament in part 
 very felicitously from the side of profane classical literature ; de 
 Dieu, Pfeiffer, Pococke, and at a later period the school of 
 Schultens from the side- of Oriental philology ; whilst the 
 antiquarian department found in a Bochart, a Reland, a Braun, 
 and others, singularly able contributors. Whilst thus in the 
 reformed church the outer side of Exegesis was chiefly cultivated, 
 there was still a want in respect of dogmatic clearness and 
 definiteness in the majority of these interpreters which is to their 
 disadvantage.^ A union, so much the more worthy of notice, of 
 both qualities appears on the other hand in the Cocceians, wherever 
 their hermeneutical principle that of pressing the typico-allegorical 
 explanation, is decidedly kept out of view, as especially in the 
 
 1 See Calvin as an interpreter in Tholuck's Lit. Auzig. 1831, Nr. 41, ff. 
 
 2 TLusin tlie case of Grotius and Clericus, of tlie former of whom Ernesti most truly 
 snys: in senteutiis indulget opinionibus suis et saepe a veritate aberrat. Instit. int. 
 N. T., p. 173. 
 
INTiiRFRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. '^1 S 
 
 instance of Camp. Vitringa. Marck, Seb. Sclimidt, J. H. and Ch. 
 B. Micliaelis are also, as instances of exegetes free from the 
 peculiar errors of their times, and knowing most distinctly and firmly 
 exercising the vocation of an interpreter, entitled to distinction. 
 Among the Lutherans, on the other hand, the exegesis of the Old 
 Testament was sadly neglected, and exegesis degenerated into a 
 collection of dogmatical common places, though here it must be 
 acknowledged that a copious apologetical element is contained. The 
 peculiarity of the Lutheran exegesis during the age of stringent 
 orthodoxy appears most characteristically in the Commentaries of 
 Calov, who chiefly replies to Grotius, Geier, Tarnow, &c. 
 
 Since the Old Testament was exposed to the cavils especially of 
 Deism and Rationalism, its interpretation during the earlier period 
 of unbelief can be regarded only as having retrograded. A product 
 of this period, and deserving to be mentioned only on account of 
 its compass, is Schulz's Scholia in V. T., continued by Bauer (10 
 voll.), with which in superficiality and baselessness the " Exegetisclie 
 Handbuch des A. T." (9 parts.) competes. As opposed to such 
 works. Nelson's " Antideistische Bibel," the English Bible-Com- 
 mentary (translated by R. Teller, Baumgarten, Dietelmaier. and 
 Brucker,) deserve to be duly acknowledged. The translation of 
 the Bible, with annotations for the unlearned by J. D. Michaelis, 
 contains much that in an apologetic respect is of importance, and 
 the same may be said of the Brentano-Dereserian work on the 
 Bible, though here the exegetical element is sadly deficient. Among 
 more recent translations the Latin one of Dathe and the German 
 one of De Wette deserve especial respect. Utterly useless 
 is the work of Schulz and Bauer already mentioned. As a 
 collection of exegetical materials, the scholia of Rosenmiiller are 
 valuable, though the author's own views are often unsettled, and 
 there is throughout very little independent thinking. The gramma- 
 tical exegesis is principally kept in view in the recently published 
 Commentary on the Old Testament by Maurer. 
 
( 375 ) 
 
 CHAPTER FIFTH. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 § 96. IDEA OF THIS. 
 
 Whilst antiquity in determining the idea of criticism, and of the 
 vocation of the critic allowed the subjective, the aesthetic preference 
 to predominate/ in more recent times it is the objective import of 
 criticism which, through our altered position in reference to the 
 monuments of antiquity, has been more clearly developed. In the 
 general, criticism in its bearing on the Canon, is the determination of 
 what originally belonged to the Canon or not, and of all that which, 
 according to its original destination, has a fundamental want of 
 right to be treated as canonical or not. 
 
 In the general the history of the Canon shows its rise, its close, 
 and the reception accorded to it. There also are to be found the 
 general facts on which as a basis the history of the text advances. 
 Now since the special introduction will discuss the further his- 
 tory of the Canon in the case of each book, what fall to be 
 considered here are the facts ascertained of the history of the text. 
 The business of criticism is to place in combination the present 
 extant text with these facts, and in full cognizance of the historical 
 point of transition of the text, to give judgment thereon accordingly. 
 
 To this end the aid of interpretation must be called in, inas- 
 
 1 Criticorum muuus erat auctoritatem et yvijcria'TiiTa veterum scriptorum exfjuirere et 
 sua cuique vindirare, maxime vero virtutes illovuin et vitia percensere, ut discerent 
 anditores, quid iu iis imitaiidum, quid vt-ris scribendi legibus contrarium esset. Wolf, 
 prolegg. ad Homer, p. 234. 
 
37G PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 much as it has a critical as well as an exegetical side, the importance 
 of which is increased or diminished according to the diflferent stand- 
 points of the interpreters, that is as they approach more or less in 
 respect of age or character to the original source of the text. The 
 first thing, then, to be treated of in respect to the constitution of 
 the text, as a matter of fact, is the position and conception of it in 
 reference to the historical aids of criticism; and to this is appended 
 the question what procedure is to be adopted where these do not 
 suffice; after which comes the decision upon the text, according to the 
 variety of its constituent parts, inasmuch as the question must be 
 here considered in how much and how far the idea of the purity or 
 corruption of the text is to be extended and apprehended. The 
 former of these embraces the critical process; the latter the critical 
 result. 
 
 § 97. CRITICAL PROCESS IN REFERENCE TO THE HISTORICAL 
 WITNESSES. 
 
 Tn the critical adjudication of the text we are first directed to 
 the Masoretic text, since its vouchers, the Masoretic work itself, 
 and the MSS., as well as the earliest editions made from them, 
 are to be found there. Id this we possess the traditional Jewish 
 text, and we must separate from this what on the one hand has been 
 otherwise through arbitrary alteration introduced into the MSS., 
 and on the other hand what the Masoretes have inserted through 
 the traditional element, in accordance with their overruling 
 principles on that point, The more the codices collectively lead 
 up to the common source, the less is account to be taken of the 
 number of codices in reference to their variation from the textus 
 receptus, unless it can be shown that it points to an older historical 
 authority. 
 
 With the Masoretic text must be combined the pre- Masoretic, 
 as this is found on the one hand in the pre-Masoretic labours of 
 the Talmudists, and on the other in the older versions. Here, 
 above all, attention must be paid to the special peculiarity of the 
 representatives of this text, in using and adducing it, and thereby 
 to discover whether this or that reading actually formed an ingredient 
 in a pro-Masoretic text. 
 
OF THE (iLD TESTAMENT. 377 
 
 Beyond this pre-Masoretic text our knowledge of the text does 
 not extend ; for the parallel passages of the Old Testament cannot 
 be taken as historical witnesses in the strict sense of the word. 
 
 The various readings obtained in this historico- critical manner, 
 require, as to their internal contents, a criticism in a twofold point 
 of view, inasmuch as the original of a variant reading may be 
 discovered either by its bearing on those concurring with it (the 
 historico-cntical method), where the rule holds that the reading 
 which accounts for the rise of all the rest is the original one ;^ or 
 by an exe^etico- critical method, in which Hermeneutics come to 
 the aid of criticism." In this latter case, however, the relation of 
 exegesis to criticism must not be determined by assuming the 
 hermeneutical rules a priori, and thpn pxercising criticism accord- 
 ingly, since the converse process, by which the reading fixed by 
 criticism is made to condition exegesis, is much the surer. The 
 truth, however, is here not on one side, but the right course is the 
 mutual comparison of the historical substratum with the general 
 exegetical principles. So in a linguistic respect anomalies are not 
 simply to be rejected critically as contrary to the laws of the 
 language, but as they are entitled, if they can, to sustain their 
 historical foundation, so in case of their doing so they must be 
 viewed as unusual anomalies, and must be brought into comparison 
 with the general laws of the language.^ Still less are the rhetorical 
 laws of discourse to be reduced to a strictly schematic form, for here 
 the freedom of subjectivity is sLil! more unrestrained.* 
 
 Since on the whole we have for the Old Testament, though the 
 original transcripts are not extant, a permanent and very faithful 
 tradition, the whole peculiarity of it is very definitely in our view, 
 — the field of critical conjecture is a very slippery one, — and what 
 has already been realised on the result of conjectural criticism is 
 by much too insecure to be allowed to enter the text. 
 
 1 De Wette, Einl. § 122. 
 
 2 De Wette, § 118, fif. 
 
 3 An extreme specimen of the arbitrary settling of the text upon (not fitly founded) 
 linguistic principles is furnished by Hitzig in his Begriff der Kritik, his Comment, z 
 Jesaias, and his Uebersetz. der Pss., although this procedure, with all its one-sidedness, 
 is very much fitted to conduct nearer to the truth. 
 
 4 Thus e. gr. the passages corrected by Olshausen (Emendatt. z. A. T., especially ». 
 14, &c.) are the result of a one-sided constiuction of the parallelisms. 
 
378 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 ^ UO. CRITICISM AS RESPECTS ITS OBJECTS. 
 
 The general result of textual criticism is that our old Testameot 
 text is, through the care of the Jewish critics, in a very sound state 
 even in its smallest parts. Hence criticism has not only now to 
 survey the historical aids, but also again to sustain the history 
 of individual elements of the text according to their diplomatic 
 formation and character. 
 
 The critic must thus have respect, in the first instance, to the 
 double alphabet, the Old Hebrew and the square character, and 
 likewise he must determine the relation of the consonantal and 
 vowel criticism. In respect of the former, the possibihty of a 
 corruption of the consonants through the alteration of the alphabet, 
 and even at a later period through the negligence of transcribers,^ 
 must be allowed. But this is balanced by the fact that in the 
 writing of this alphabet an especially anxious care was exercised, 
 and the alteration of the alphabet happened at a time when, from 
 the relations of the age, a corruption of the consonants cannot 
 readily be anticipated. If accordingly on the one hand there are 
 passages, such as 1 Sam. xvii. 34, where pfj stands for pj^, on the 
 other the reading f^ for y2 (Ezek. xxv. 7) is not at all to be 
 received, and this is to be followed as a critical principle in almost 
 all passages which recent critics have adduced as specimens of 
 consonantal corruption.^ — On the contrary, in reference to vowel 
 criticism, the more correct course has been adopted by those who 
 refer this department to exegesis as helonging to the tinderstandin^ 
 of Scripture, and cease to treat this element of writing as a dead 
 material to be separated from the properly vital one, or to be placed 
 in conjunction with it at pleasure.^ 
 
 Closely connected with letter criticism is that of words, since the 
 latter is identical with the former in concreto, and presupposes it 
 as a basis. Here in the first instance respect must be had to the 
 correct division of the words, where, however, it must not be forgotten 
 
 1 Kicbliorn admits similar cases as possible, Einl. I. 96, ff. 
 
 2 Hitzig, Begr. d. Krit., s. 124, fF. Comp. herewitb Olsbausen's principle, 1. c, s. 9, 
 that tbe number of errors iu reference to consonants is the larger. 
 
 3 The vowel criticism is principally in its place when it discusses tbe pre-Masoretic 
 reading in the Keri and Ketib, as e. gr. 2 Sam. xxiii. 21, ns-(?3 itux, where nevertheless 
 Hitzig's explanation (s. 122) is not quite suitable. 
 
or THE OLD TESTAMENT. 379 
 
 how closely this is connected with the square character. Hence 
 also in this respect the later criticism has shown itself much too 
 hypercritical.^ The corrections coming under this head resting on 
 the exchange of one word for another, and mistaken intrusion or 
 rejection of a foreign, or the true form &c., are, however, to be so 
 much the more restricted, since here there is an effort to exert 
 an influence one-sided, philological, and severed from historical 
 enquiry.^ 
 
 So also with the criticism of clauses, where not only must the 
 division according to the Masoretic accentuation be assumed as 
 acknowledged on its merits, but also respect must be had to its 
 character which does not always determine the sense, and hence to 
 its proper critical estimation. The dividing of verses and clauses, 
 however, is to be viewed from this side also by no means as in the 
 state of confusion in which, from a passion for correcting, some 
 have recently insisted on regarding it. — Of more weight are the 
 clauses which it has been proposed to view as glosses in the Old 
 Testament, a circumstance which has linked the higher with the 
 lower criticism, as of late some have connected with the assumption 
 of a text interwoven with such glosses, the non-authenticity of large 
 portions of the Old Testament Canon.* What has been adduced 
 in support of this is in part incorrect, as for instance the alleged 
 interpolations in the text of Isaiah, with which in a very uncritical 
 fashion has been collocated the procedure of the Samaritans, &c., 
 which explains nothing ; in part it requires a positive elucidation 
 and closer determination, as in the case of much in the historical 
 books, which then will permit us to pronounce a definite judgment 
 according to its character and tendency on the interpolation. What 
 has recently been claimed in support of this, that in the case of the 
 glosses only a negative criticism needs to be exercised,^ contains the 
 ground of the very obvious illusion attendant on this procedure, in 
 virtue of which there is a total ignoring of the significant questions 
 wherefore, hoiv, and hy whom it may be supposed that such 
 additions were introduced ; and it is self-evident how broadly the 
 
 1 Comp. Hitzig 1. c, s. 133, fi'. 
 
 2 Tlius 2 Sam. xiii. 38 is not to be emended into Turn's ^SPi'i, but tLis construction is 
 here a free one, since tbe T^n is appended to wLat follows, as in Prov. xxvii. 7. 
 
 3 Hitzig z. Jes. s. XXXVI. Comp. Gesenius, z. Jes. Eiul, g 8. 
 
 4 Comp. Hitzig, Begr. d. Kritik, s. 116, 102, ff. 
 
380 PRINCIPLES OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 period before and that subsequent to the closing of the Canon must 
 in such a case be discriminated. Hence we demand for the entire 
 province of textual criticism as much a positive as a negative process. 
 
 § 99. ESTIMATE OF CERTAIN OTHER CRITICAL SYSTEMS. 
 
 A leading departure from the truth in criticism lies in a one-sided 
 over-valuing of particular historical aids, instead of placing them in 
 their just relation to the whole; as is exemplified in the opinion 
 of Js. Vossius on the Alexandrian Eecension already noticed. 
 Analogous to this was the earlier controversy respecting the worth 
 of the Samaritan text. Such a process, nevertheless, has had the 
 effect of leading to a more faithful investigation of the parallel aids 
 of criticism, and thereby to supply to the historical substratum a 
 more befitting comprehensiveness. 
 
 Not less self-avenging has been the one-sided tendency which it 
 has been attempted to give to criticism by introducing arbitrary 
 distinctions into the text (as consonant-vowels), such as we find in 
 Capell and his adherents, and by which the symmetrical critical 
 constitution and estimation of the text was neglected. This, 
 however, has contributed to the more thorough comprehension of 
 the text in its historical formation, and consequently to its not 
 being set forth arbitrarily, but observed critically, according to its 
 whole tenor. 
 
 Opposed to the one-sided historical process stands the subjective- 
 a priori, which, since the time of Houbigant, has especially had 
 vogue, and of which the necessary consequence is an arbitrary rage 
 for hypothesis. Following this, there is, in point of practice, a 
 casting aside at least of all the historical limits of criticism, and a 
 construction of the text in the manner in which it may be supposed 
 the author could have written, without reflecting that here, in the 
 region of possibilities, no boundaries can be fixed beyond which it 
 shall not be possible to fancy or to find some other thing. Where 
 it is thus attempted to place the office of the critic under a wholly 
 subjective influence, the effect will be only to call forth more 
 powerfully the opposite tendency, and to render the objective part 
 of criticism more sure. 
 
 Accordingly there was jiistico in what tlie old Protestant critical 
 
 2 
 
OF THE OLD TESTAMExXT. 38 I 
 
 school (Buxtorf, Carpzov, Hettinger, &c.) affirmed when they 
 spoke of the results of criticism in opposition to the false tendencies 
 just noticed. Only they fell into an error as to the manner in 
 which these results are reached, since they, partially entering into 
 the matter, and allowing themselves to be drawn aside by the 
 opposite process, urged a particular historical fact through the 
 one-sided conception of the controverted question too far, and did 
 not apprehend it in all its different references (as e. (jr. the vowel- 
 controversy.) The positive element of criticism, however, was 
 thereby advanced and fortified, and could therefore only tend to a 
 better and ever new development of the negative criticism. 
 
( 383 ) 
 
 CHAPTER SIXTH. 
 
 principlb;s of old testament hermeneutics. 
 
 .Q 1 
 
 § 100. PRELIMINARY. 
 
 Old Testament special hermeneutics assume the existence both of 
 a general hermeneutic, and of one specially bibhcal. Not only the 
 former, as the science which develops the general concepts of the 
 understanding, but also the latter, whose special business it is to set 
 forth these concepts in relation to the Bible Canon, lies at the 
 foundation here. The peculiarity of the work of interpretation is 
 thus conditioned by the pecuHarity of the object, and the view of 
 the interpreter in reference to it, operates essentially on his interpre- 
 tation ; on which account the interpreter of the Canon can alone 
 recognize and fulfil his vocation, when the true doctrine of the 
 Canon has taken possession of his soul. Hence, biblical hermeneu- 
 tics has as a necessary dogmatical basis, the tenet of the inspiration 
 of the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 From this arises the twofold aspect of the hermeneutics of the 
 Canon ; on the one hand, as it is the work of the Holy Spirit ; and 
 on the other, as it is truth presented in human form and language ; 
 and hence a twofold ojQfice falls upon the interpreter, to reproduce 
 subjectively the objective fact, so that, on the one hand, through 
 this hving reproduction there shall be a response to the Divine 
 Spirit in the soul of the interpreter ; and, on the other, by means 
 
 1 Comp. Meyer, Hermeneutik des A. T. 17y9, 1800, 2 Parts.— Pareau, lustitutio 
 interpretis V. T., especially p. 179, sqq. 
 
384 PRINCIPLES OF OLD TESTAMENT HERMEXEUTICS. 
 
 of a knowledge of the instruments whereby the Holy Ghost manifests 
 himself, the human language of the Canon and its historical rise 
 and reference, a true interpretation shall be brought forth ; on the 
 other hand, the observation is also to be kept closely in view, that 
 all departures from the true stand-point of interpretation proceed 
 from a false or one-sided, and narrow conception of the twofold, but 
 in concrete inseparably connected, office of Hermeneutics. From 
 the comprehensive conception of this science, it arises that we have 
 to do first as respects the Old Testament with its human- general 
 side ; but after that also with its spiritual divine contents, and it is 
 only when the former of these is pursued in vital union with the 
 latter, that a proper theolofjfical Hevemeneatio of the Old Testament 
 is attained. 
 
 § 101. PHILOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 This conceives the formal in the Old Testament Canon, the 
 peculiar expression of the thoughts of the sacred writers, on the 
 side of its consonance with human modes of speech viewed generally. 
 The peculiar difficulty of Hebrew philology arises from the fact, 
 that the language itself is a dead one ; so that we must treat of the 
 aids which shall put in possession of this. These, according to 
 their nature, are either traditional or purely philological. 
 
 On the traditional side Philology is the knowledge of the pre- 
 servation of the Hebrew language in general and in particular, the 
 manner in which the language was as a dead language propagated, 
 partly through its learned cultivation as among the Rabbins, partly 
 through the interpretations of the Old Testament, where naturally 
 respect must be had to the original earlier tradition, as in the 
 translations, and to the peculiarity of their mode of construction, 
 in order to determine the worth of the tradition. 
 
 The inner side of the philological understanding is the purely 
 philological investigation, which adheres to the former as its vital 
 principle. The authority of tradition must sustain itself by general 
 logical laws of philology, and specially by the historically 
 exhibited character of the Hebrew Chaldaic idiom of the Old 
 Testament. This idiom, however, must be viewed partly in itself, 
 and construed from its inner peculiarity, partly also must be 
 
PRINCIPLES OF OLD TESTAMENT HERMENEUTICS. 385 
 
 apprehended in its relation to the allied dialects. The non-acknow- 
 ledgment and the removal of the connection in the study of the 
 Hebrew philology have given rise to the different systems of learned 
 treatment, and partially also of one-sided exegetical application ; 
 on which account it is only when the exegete exercises a propor- 
 tionate and harmoniously directed regard upon these various sides 
 of linguistic science that his work is profitable. It is only, again, 
 from this stand-point comprehending the whole essence of Hebrew 
 philology that a right method of observing what is peculiar to each 
 writer of Old Testament Scripture is possible. 
 
 § 102. HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 Every literary production stands connected with its age, inas- 
 much as it has arisen under the living influence of this, and so 
 forms an historical element thereof. Hence this side of the 
 historical connection of a writing with its age and the relations of 
 its age forms the second object of the exegete, which is distin- 
 guished from the former by its reference to the material of a 
 writing. In the case of the Old Testament there is a double 
 side to the historical understanding, as that is required to ap- 
 prehend the writings composing it in their relation to the East 
 generally, and to the Hebrew people specially. This constitutes the 
 archaelogical element in interpretation which, when its results are 
 collocated as a distinct discipline, becomes Archaeology in the 
 w'ider sense. 
 
 It is certain that the writings of the Old Testament in many 
 respects find their full scientific explanation only through a respect 
 to what peculiarly belongs to the East (and our age is happy in 
 possessing a rich collection of materials for the understanding of 
 what is oriental) ; but the general knowledge here will not suffice 
 for the apprehension of what is specially Hebrew, for which again 
 the Old Testament is itself the principal source. The one-sidedness 
 of the historical understanding consists in seeking always to refer 
 the special to something general, or conversely denying the general 
 in its application to the special.^ 
 
 1 Aae. ^r. was at least partially the case in the coutroversy between Spenrer and 
 Witsius on tbe Mosaic legislation, 
 2 B 
 
886 TRINCIPLES OF OLD TESTAMENT HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 § 103. THE THEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE OLD 
 
 TESTAMENT. 
 
 The proper theological understanding of the Old Testament is 
 the penetrating into the spirit or peculiar religious element of the 
 book. From the idea of the Canon flows the necessary assumption 
 that all the portions composing it are bound together by a common 
 principle into one whole, and this is the religious element peculiar 
 to Hebraism, which runs through it like a thread from beginning to 
 end of the Divine revelation. This must be disclosed to the 
 interpreter, before his explanation can be pervaded by the living 
 breath of the Old Testament writings in their truth, depth, and 
 fulness. 
 
 The grammatical and historical understanding of the Old 
 Testament can only help to conceive the outer formal or material 
 sphere of it ; and the necessity of it is clear from this, inasmuch as 
 the Old Testament writings must cease to be treated as historical 
 phenomena, in case its application were brought into doubt. If, 
 further, the outer historical appearance of these be apprehended, as 
 in point of fact one with their higher and Divine origin, there is 
 surrendered the union practically so much to be desired by the 
 interpreter of the spiritual in the outward with its internal impene- 
 tration. 
 
 Only thus, in the first instance, can the place of the gramrcatico- 
 historical interpretation itself be rightly conceived ; its inadequacy 
 will be especially apparent with such passages as present no 
 difficulties as respects their application, but the theological under- 
 standing of which occasions the greatest labour. Thus also will 
 the theological apprehension vindicate its proper rights to the 
 grammatico-historical, since otherwise it remains a mere outward 
 accedens.^ 
 
 The theological understanding of the Old Testament conceives 
 the writers in their mutual relation to each other, in their inner 
 connection, and at the same time in their peculiar diversity. Since 
 the 01d_ Testament presents its religious ideas not as mysteries, 
 not as something yet to be revealed, but throughout in a practical 
 
 1 There can thus be no historual apprebension of the Old Testament either in 
 particular or whole, unless tiie history be treated from the llwologkol stand-point. This, 
 however, is just the theological apprehension. 
 
PllINCIPLES OF OLD TESTAMENT HEEMENEUTICS. 887 
 
 bearing, as they come into manifestation as facts, the theological 
 apprehension discovers even here the actual thus coming concretly 
 into view, and the therein contained dogmatic or ethic element as 
 the one common element amid the manifoldness of the facts. 
 
 The theological understanding, however, conceives the entire 
 Old Testament stand-point according to its collective appearance, 
 in relation to that of the New Testament, as that of the preparation 
 to that of the fulfilment. Thus the interpretation of the Old 
 Testament always shapes itself as a coming back to the facts of 
 revelation, in which stands its inner oneness with the New 
 Testament ;^ but at the same time as a demonstration of the 
 non-identity of the two Testaments; and thus whilst certainly on 
 the one hand walking in the light of the New Testament, the 
 interpreter penetrates to the kernel of the Old, and there recognizes 
 the same living God in the evidences of his truthfulness and grace, 
 who in the other has become man, so on the other hand he thereby 
 comes to apprehend the facts of the Old Testament in relation to 
 the one centre point of revelation in Christ, and thus the mediate 
 in its reference to the immediate. 
 
 §104. REFUTATION OF SOME OTHER MODES OF INTERPRETATION 
 IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The more that an interest in the Old Testament as a part of the 
 Scripture Canon stimulates to an endeavour to find its true mean- 
 ing, so much the greater does the diversity of interpretation 
 become. But this diversity is on the whole to be referred to the 
 two sides which constitute the essence of the revelation, and which 
 have been considered, one apart from the other, and then variously 
 modified. In respect of these modifications there are for our age 
 two principal tendencies to be considered. 
 
 In the one of these the grammatico-historical interpretation of 
 the Old Testament is so regarded that it is esteemed sufiicient for 
 all purposes of explanation. In this case, the purely outward side, 
 the human side of the Old Testament comes alone into considera- 
 tion, and this it is which, in part, it has been sought to place in a 
 bad light on account of its little significancy, for the mere outer 
 
 ^ See Nitzscli System of Cliristiaii Doctrine, Kdiiib. T. rtiiil T. Clark, § 30. 
 
i]SS PRINCIPLES OF OLD TESTAMEN l' HERMENEUTICS. 
 
 side of the Old Testament as the mere pohtical history of the 
 people of the covenant, is certainly a very profitless affair, but in 
 part also has been treated more objectively as a fact purely existing 
 for itself and without significance. The rationalistic exegesis has 
 extended no further than to this apprehension of the shell of the 
 Old Testament, and since it had nothing to say of the kernel, the 
 entire contents of the Old Testament under its hands came to a 
 mere aggregate of external facts, for whose higher significance no 
 one cared, since they were satisfied with the application of the 
 philological and outer historical research. The principle that the 
 Old Testament must be treated like any other work of an oriental 
 writer has, it is true, led to the more correct apprehension of the 
 general side of its historical development, but on the other hand 
 this has become the more inconceivable and puzzhng, the less a 
 true theological meaning has been carried along with it for what is 
 peculiarly Hebrew. Nay, by this course, even the Old Testament 
 philology and history themselves were rendered partially untrue, 
 because it was one-sided, and because it reduced the living word to 
 an arid abstraction, evacuated of its contents, and its living spirit 
 misapprehended. 
 
 No less unsound, however, is the variously modified apprehension 
 of the Old Testament according to its purely ideal reference. This 
 is indeed as to its general grounds nothing else than the giving up 
 of the historical phenomenon of the Canon, and there comes in 
 here only the in itself certainly very weighty but, viewed as a 
 hermeneutical principle, unimportant difference, whether the ideal 
 contents of the Old Testament shall be apprehended in its collective 
 accordance with revelation generally, or from the stand-point of a 
 more subjective (philosophical) system. This method of interpreta- 
 tion in the wider meaning of the word, comprehends under it the 
 allegorical, and has in it only this of truth, that it proposes to 
 conceive the contents of Scripture as an eternal spiritual idea, but 
 this is arbitrarily determined, and not so as in point of fact it comes 
 into manifestation. Hence against this process it is not so much 
 to be objected that a difference of meaning is produced by it from 
 what the author intended (for this the profounder among the 
 advocates of this interpretation^ will never admit) but chiefly that 
 
 1 Gomp. f'.^r. Dr OlsliaiiPen, Tlelier tieferm Scliriftsinn. 
 
TRINCirLES OF OLD TESTAMENT IIERMENEI'TICS. 38t) 
 
 it misapprehends the canonical word as a purely human phenome- 
 non ; hence here also the most subtile theory of a vTrovoia of 
 the sacred writers finds its sharpest confutation, inasmuch as the 
 Divine Spirit can come into manifestation in the Scripture Canon 
 only in the same way as human thought does in liuman words ; if 
 indeed the fundamental concept of the Canon and its significance 
 as God's word be not given up in the Church of the Lord. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
JUST PUBLISHED, 
 In post 8t50, price As Gd, cloili, 
 
 THE AMERICAN PULPIT 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 SERMONS 
 
 BARNES. CHEEYER, SPRING, BETHUNE, HODGE, k 
 
 It is believed that those specimens of the eloquence of our Trans 
 atlantic brethren will be peculiarly acceptable. 
 
 EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLAKK. 
 
WORKS PUBLISHED 
 
 BY 
 
 HOULSTON AND STONEMAN, 
 
 65, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON. 
 
 Third Edition, price 12s, 8vo, cloth, 
 
 A TEXT BOOK OF POPERY: 
 
 Comprising a BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, 
 
 aud a COMPLETE VIEW OF ROMAN CATHOLIC THEOLOGY. By J. M. 
 
 Ckamp, D.D. 
 
 The late Dr Coplestone, Bishop of Llandaff, referring to a former edition of this work, 
 says, in the "Pastoral Address on Roman Catholic Errors," — 
 
 " A work which I can never cease to recommend as alone sufficient to instruct a mind 
 desirous of the truth on this momentous subject in all its branches. It is a book full of learn- 
 ing, and scrupulous in giving authorities for all its statements ; and yet so written that it may 
 serve as a manual even to those who have not had a learned education, and may put them in 
 possession of all that is necessary to guide their judgment, and to maintain the cause of their 
 Church against the Church of Rome, and against those who, though not professed members, 
 are her ambiguous apologists and abettors." — Papc 71. 
 
 New Edition, price 3s 6d, 12mo, cloth, 
 
 THE SACRED WRITINGS OF THE APOSTLES AND EVAN- 
 GELISTS OF JESUS CHRIST, commonly styled the New Testament, Translated 
 from the Original Greek, hy Doctors George Campbell, James Macknight, and 
 PuiLiP DoDDEiGE. With Prefaces, various Emendations, and an Appendix, hy 
 Alexander Campbell, of Bethany, U. S. 
 
 12mo, price 29 6d, cloth, the Twelfth Edition, 
 
 THE SCRIPTURE GUIDE TO BAPTISM; containing a Faithful 
 
 Citation of all the Passages of the New Testament which relate to the Ordinance, 
 with Explanatory Observations ; and attended by numerous Extracts from Eminent 
 Writers; with an Appendix, by R. Pengillt. 
 
 Price 2s 6d, 12mo, cloth, 
 
 THE ECONOMY OF PRAYER, in PRINCIPLE, PRACTICE, 
 
 and RESULT. Deduced from the Lord's Prayer, by Joseph Ede. 
 " In this work much stress is placed on the reflex operation of Prayer. The amplitude 
 of the promises annexed to the duty in the Scriptures has not, however, been lost sight of." 
 
 THE REV. J. HINTON'S MEMOIR OF THE LATE W^ILLIAM 
 
 KNIBB, with a beautiful Portrait, 12mo, bound in cloth, price 3s 6d. 
 The Publishers are now authorised to sell the remaining copies of the Second 
 Edition of this valuable work at the above reduced price. 
 
 Lately published, 
 
 THE JEWISH WAR. 
 
 DR TRAILL'S TRANSLATION OF JOSEPHUS; Edited by 
 
 Isaac Taylor. Tlie publication of this Work is now completed, in two Volumes, 
 price i'2, 5s, cloth boards, loyal octavo; .£4, lOs, laige paper. With Introductory 
 and Explanatory Essays and Notes, and a copious and carefully prepared Index. 
 The Jewish War is Illustrated with Seventy-five Engravings. To these Illus- 
 trations, carefully engraved from the Drawings of William Tipping, Esq., made in 
 Palestine expressly for this Work, a high and peculiar value is attached, their 
 fidehty and accuracy having been acknowledged by distinguished persons acquainted 
 with the Holy Land. 
 
 Just published, post 8vo, with numerous Illustrations, price 7s 6d, 
 
 JOURNAL OF A TOUR IN CEYLON AND INDIA, undertaken 
 
 at the request of the Baptist Missionary Society, in company with the Rev. J. 
 
 Leechman, M.A. By Joshua Russell. 
 
 " We feel greatly indebted to Mr Russell for this volume. We earnestly recommend it 
 to the perusal cf our friends, whether minors or adults. It has afforded us much pleasure, 
 aiul raised our estimate of the usefulness of missionary labour in t'he'E,a.hi."—Biiptist Magazine. 
 
 12mo, price 3s 6d, cloth, 
 
 LETTERS WRITTEN DURING A TOUR IN HOLLAND, AND 
 
 NORTH GERMANY, IN JULY AND AUGUST, 1851. By John Howard 
 
 HiNTON, M.A. 
 
CHEAP AND UNIFORM EDITION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CONGREGATIONAL LECTURES. 
 
 The First Issue of the above valuable series of Works is now ready, comprising — 
 
 I.— CHRISTIAN ETHICS; ov, Moral Philosophy on the Principles 
 of Divine Revelation. By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. 
 
 II.— THE CAUSES OF THE CORRUPTION OF CHRIS- 
 TIANITY. ByRoBERT Vaughan, D.D. 
 III.— THE CHRISTIAN ATONEMENT : Its Basis, Nature, and 
 
 Bearings; or, the principle of Substitution Illustrated, as applied in the Redemp- 
 tion of Man. By the Rev. .Toseph Gilbekt. 
 
 IV.— DIVINE INSPIRATION; or, the Supernatural Influence 
 
 exerted in the Communication of Divine Truth, and its Special Bearing on the 
 Composition of the Sacred Scriptures. By Ebenezeb Henderson, D.D. 
 The Subscription for the Four Works, neatly bound in cloth and lettered, is 
 Twelve Shillings ; but the Volumes may be had separately, price 5s each. 
 
 The difterent works having been submitted to their respective authors for revision, 
 and full indices accompanying each, the present may be considered a greatly Improved 
 Edition. 
 London : Jackson & Walfobd, 18 St Paul's Churchyard, of whom may be had the 
 
 following 
 Recent Publications. 
 Second Edition, in foolscap 8vo, with Frontispiece and Vignette, price .3s 6d cloth, 
 PHILIP DODDRIDGE: His Life and Labours. A Centenary 
 Memorial. By John Stoughton, Author of" Spiritual Heroes," &c. 
 " We anticipate for it a large circulation and enduring popularity." — Eclectic Review. 
 " One of the most beautiful, instructive, and impressive pieces of biography we remember 
 ever to have read." — Evauyelical Magazine. 
 
 In foolscnp 8vo, price 3s 6d cloth, 
 
 TOWER CHURCH SERMONS. Discourses Preached in the Tower 
 
 Church, Belvidere, Erith, Kent. By the Rev. A. Monod, Paris; the Rev. Dr 
 
 Keummacheb, Berlin ; the Rev. T. Binnet, London. Edited by T. Binney. 
 
 " The volume is considerably unique in the circumstances that have called it forth ; and as 
 
 the offspririg of three men so remarkable, under such circumstances, it bears upon its whole 
 
 substance and manner an impress of its own. It will be read with deep interest by the 
 
 thoughtful and devout into whose hands it shall fall." — British Quarterly Review. 
 
 In 8vo, price 10s 6d cloth, 
 THE SACRAMENTS : An Inquiry into the Nature of the Symbolic 
 Institutions of the Christian Religion. By Robert Halley, D.D. 
 PART II.-THE I.ORD'S SUPPER. 
 (being the Fifteenth Series of the Congregational Lecture). 
 " There can be no question that the work is an important contribution to the literature of a 
 subject of great theological interest." — Kitto's Journal. 
 
 *** A few copies of Part I.— Baptism, 8vo, price Us cbth, may still be had. 
 
 In 8vo, price lOs 6d cloth, 
 
 THE "SVORK of the SPIRIT. By William Hendry Stowell. D.D. 
 
 (being the Fourteenth Series of the Congregational Lecture). 
 " A vnlume of deep thought, orthodox in its matter, evangelical in Its spirit, and written in 
 a glowing, eiirnest style, that makes the most recondite disquisitions readable and interesting." 
 — Watchman. 
 
 In post 8vo, price 6s cloth, 
 
 THE AGE AND CHRISTIANITY. Six Lectures, delivered in the 
 
 Hanover Square Rooms, in February and March, 1849. By Robert Vaughan, D.D. 
 
 «• It is throughout informed with a catholic spirit, the logic is clear and 
 
 convincing, the style lucid, axiomatic, and sententious, and the matter full and weighty. It 
 will well repay perusal." — Athenceum. 
 
 In foolscap 8vo, price 5s cloth 
 
 AUTOBIOGRAPHY of the Rev. W. WALFORD, late Classical 
 
 and Hebrew Tutor in the College at Ilomerton. Edited (with a Continuation) by 
 John Stoughton. 
 " One of the most remarkable self-told stories of human life ever submitted to the study nf 
 the Christian or philosoplipr." — Nonconformist. 
 
 This is a most valuable piece of biography, particularly so to thf psychologist, and all 
 intere-tcd in the workings of a mind under tlie influence of i\sciLse."—Winsloiv's Psychological 
 Journal. 
 
BS1174.H133 
 
 A general historico-critical 
 
 Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00006 1640