called also absolutely Hebrew, is the language spoken
by the Hebrews, and in which all the books of the Old Testament are
written; whence it is also called the holy or sacred language. It is
said to have been preserved in the midst of the confusion at Babel, in
the family of Heber, or Eber, who, as it is alleged, was not concerned
in the building of Babel, and, consequently, did not share in the
punishment inflicted on the actual transgressors. The Jews, in general,
have been of opinion, that the Hebrew was the language of Heber’s
family, from whom Abraham sprung. On the other hand, it has been
maintained that Heber’s family, in the fourth generation after the
dispersion, lived in Chaldea, where Abraham was born, Gen. xi, 27, 28,
and that there is no reason to think they used a different language from
their neighbours around them. It appears, moreover, that the Chaldee,
and not the Hebrew, was the language of Abraham’s country, and of his
kindred, Gen. xxiv, 4; xxxi, 46, 47; and it is probable that Abraham’s
native language was Chaldee, and that the Hebrew was the language of the
Canaanites, which Abraham and his posterity learned by travelling among
them. It is surprising that this adoption of the Phenician language by
the patriarchs should have escaped the notice of several intelligent
readers of the Bible. Jacob and Laban, it is clear, by the names they
gave to the cairn, or memorial of stones, spoke two different dialects;
and it is nearly equally evident, that the language of Laban was the
dialect of Ur of the Chaldees, the original speech of the Hebrew race.
As the patriarchs disused the true Hebrew dialect, it is manifest that
they had conformed to the speech of Canaan; and that this conformity was
complete, is proved by the identity between all the remains of
Canaanitish names. At the same time, it must be remarked, that the
Phenician and the Chaldean were merely different dialects of the same
primitive language which had been spoken by the first ancestors of
mankind.
2. There is no work in all antiquity written in pure Hebrew, beside the
books of the Old Testament; and even some parts of those are in Chaldee.
The Hebrew appears to be the most ancient of all the languages in the
world; at least it is so with regard to us, who know of no older. Dr.
Sharpe adopts the opinion, that the Hebrew was the original language;
not indeed that the Hebrew is the unvaried language of our first
parents, but that it was the general language of men at the dispersion;
and, however it might have been improved and altered from the first
speech of our first parents, it was the original of all the languages,
or almost all the languages, rather dialects, that have since arisen in
the world. Arguments have also been deduced from the nature and genius
of the Hebrew language, in order to prove that it was the original
language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of
which it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The
names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental
circumstances, &c. The compounds are few, and inartificially conjoined;
and it is less burdened with those artificial affixes which distinguish
other cognate dialects, such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian,
Phenician, &c.
The period, from the age of Moses to that of David, has been considered
the golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from
that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several
foreign words, particularly Aramean, from the commercial and political
intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and
Babylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew
language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the
Babylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so
many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not
inaptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years’
captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost
their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from
their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they
had resided, that afterward, on their return from exile, they spoke a
dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account it was,
that, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret
them to the people in the Chaldean language; as, when Ezra the scribe
brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the
Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law,
because “they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave
the sense, and caused them to understand the reading,” Nehem. viii, 8.
Some time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be
spoken altogether; though it continued to be cultivated and studied by
the priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be
enabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it
appears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general
contents and tenor: this last mentioned period has been called the
leaden age of the language.
The present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and
of a square form; but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has
been most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in
Eusebius’s Chronicle, and another in St. Jerom, it was inferred by
Joseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church,
transcribed the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square
letters of the Chaldeans; and that this was done for the use of those
Jews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than
that of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the
old character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This
opinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as
from rabbinical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such
characters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of
this point is to be found in the ancient Hebrew coins, which were struck
before the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten
tribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same
with the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their
forms, occasioned by the depredations of time.
by the Hebrews, and in which all the books of the Old Testament are
written; whence it is also called the holy or sacred language. It is
said to have been preserved in the midst of the confusion at Babel, in
the family of Heber, or Eber, who, as it is alleged, was not concerned
in the building of Babel, and, consequently, did not share in the
punishment inflicted on the actual transgressors. The Jews, in general,
have been of opinion, that the Hebrew was the language of Heber’s
family, from whom Abraham sprung. On the other hand, it has been
maintained that Heber’s family, in the fourth generation after the
dispersion, lived in Chaldea, where Abraham was born, Gen. xi, 27, 28,
and that there is no reason to think they used a different language from
their neighbours around them. It appears, moreover, that the Chaldee,
and not the Hebrew, was the language of Abraham’s country, and of his
kindred, Gen. xxiv, 4; xxxi, 46, 47; and it is probable that Abraham’s
native language was Chaldee, and that the Hebrew was the language of the
Canaanites, which Abraham and his posterity learned by travelling among
them. It is surprising that this adoption of the Phenician language by
the patriarchs should have escaped the notice of several intelligent
readers of the Bible. Jacob and Laban, it is clear, by the names they
gave to the cairn, or memorial of stones, spoke two different dialects;
and it is nearly equally evident, that the language of Laban was the
dialect of Ur of the Chaldees, the original speech of the Hebrew race.
As the patriarchs disused the true Hebrew dialect, it is manifest that
they had conformed to the speech of Canaan; and that this conformity was
complete, is proved by the identity between all the remains of
Canaanitish names. At the same time, it must be remarked, that the
Phenician and the Chaldean were merely different dialects of the same
primitive language which had been spoken by the first ancestors of
mankind.
2. There is no work in all antiquity written in pure Hebrew, beside the
books of the Old Testament; and even some parts of those are in Chaldee.
The Hebrew appears to be the most ancient of all the languages in the
world; at least it is so with regard to us, who know of no older. Dr.
Sharpe adopts the opinion, that the Hebrew was the original language;
not indeed that the Hebrew is the unvaried language of our first
parents, but that it was the general language of men at the dispersion;
and, however it might have been improved and altered from the first
speech of our first parents, it was the original of all the languages,
or almost all the languages, rather dialects, that have since arisen in
the world. Arguments have also been deduced from the nature and genius
of the Hebrew language, in order to prove that it was the original
language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of
which it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The
names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental
circumstances, &c. The compounds are few, and inartificially conjoined;
and it is less burdened with those artificial affixes which distinguish
other cognate dialects, such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian,
Phenician, &c.
The period, from the age of Moses to that of David, has been considered
the golden age of the Hebrew language, which declined in purity from
that time to the reign of Hezekiah or Manasseh, having received several
foreign words, particularly Aramean, from the commercial and political
intercourse of the Jews and Israelites with the Assyrians and
Babylonians. This period has been termed the silver age of the Hebrew
language. In the interval between the reign of Hezekiah and the
Babylonish captivity, the purity of the language was neglected, and so
many foreign words were introduced into it, that this period has not
inaptly been designated its iron age. During the seventy years’
captivity, though it does not appear that the Hebrews entirely lost
their native tongue, yet it underwent so considerable a change from
their adoption of the vernacular languages of the countries where they
had resided, that afterward, on their return from exile, they spoke a
dialect of Chaldee mixed with Hebrew words. On this account it was,
that, when the Scriptures were read, it was found necessary to interpret
them to the people in the Chaldean language; as, when Ezra the scribe
brought the book of the law of Moses before the congregation, the
Levites are said to have caused the people to understand the law,
because “they read in the book, in the law of God, distinctly, and gave
the sense, and caused them to understand the reading,” Nehem. viii, 8.
Some time after the return from the great captivity, Hebrew ceased to be
spoken altogether; though it continued to be cultivated and studied by
the priests and Levites, as a learned language, that they might be
enabled to expound the law and the prophets to the people, who, it
appears from the New Testament, were well acquainted with their general
contents and tenor: this last mentioned period has been called the
leaden age of the language.
The present Hebrew characters, or letters, are twenty-two in number, and
of a square form; but the antiquity of these letters is a point that has
been most severely contested by many learned men. From a passage in
Eusebius’s Chronicle, and another in St. Jerom, it was inferred by
Joseph Scaliger, that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church,
transcribed the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square
letters of the Chaldeans; and that this was done for the use of those
Jews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than
that of the people among whom they had been educated. Consequently, the
old character, which we call the Samaritan, fell into total disuse. This
opinion Scaliger supported by passages from both the Talmuds, as well as
from rabbinical writers, in which it is expressly affirmed that such
characters were adopted by Ezra. But the most decisive confirmation of
this point is to be found in the ancient Hebrew coins, which were struck
before the captivity, and even previously to the revolt of the ten
tribes. The characters engraven on all of them are manifestly the same
with the modern Samaritan, though with some trifling variations in their
forms, occasioned by the depredations of time.