History of tail of his imaginary exploits and adventures. Others, who are either not willing or not qualified to peruse the * Chap. ii. writings of the rabbins, may consult Dr Hyde de Relig. vet. Pers. and the authors of the Universal Hi+ Vol I. story, where they will find materials sufficient to gratify their curiosity. We shall only observe, in addition to what we have already said, that the Persians, Chaldeans, and Arabians, pretended that their religion was that of Abraham; that honourable mention is made of him in the Koran; and that the name of Abraham or Ibrahim was celebrated over all the east. See ABRA

НАМ.

In the progress of this disquisition, we have seen that the language of Noah was, in all probability, the same or nearly the same with that of Adam. Additions and improvements might be introduced, but still the radical stamina of the language remained unchanged. It has likewise, we hope, appeared, that the confusion of language at the building of the tower of Babel was only partial, and affected none but the rebellious crew of the race of Ham, and the apostate part of the families of Shem and Japhet. We have concluded, that the main body of the race of Shem, at least, were neither dispersed nor their language confounded; and that consequently the descendants of that patriarch continued to speak their paternal dialect or the uncorrupted language of Noah. To these arguments we may take the liberty to add another, which is, that in all probability the worship of the true God was preserved in the line of Arphaxad, after the generality of the other sects had lapsed into idolatry. Out of this family Abraham was taken, in whose line the true religion was to be preserved. Whether Abraham was an idolater when he dwelt in Chaldea, the Scripture does not inform us, though it seems to be evident that his father was. One thing, however, is certain, namely, that Jehovah (E) appeared to him, and pronounced a blessing upon him before he left Ur of the Chaldees. This circumstance no doubt indicates, that this patriarch had made uncommon advances in piety and virtue, even prior to his emigration. The progenitors of his family had been distinguished by adhering to the true religion. About this time, however, they began to degenerate, and to adopt the Zabiism of their apostate neighbours. It was then that Abraham was commanded by Heaven to "leave his kindred and his father's house, and to travel into a land which was to be shown him." The Almighty intended that the true religion should be preserved in his line, and therefore removed him from a country and kindred, by the influence of whose bad example his religious principles might be endangered. His family had only of late apostatized; till that period they had preserved both the language and religion of their venerable ancestors. But however much Abraham might differ from the brew and other branches of his family in his religious sentiments, Chaldean his language was certainly in unison with theirs. The originally of this unquestionable position is, that the consequence language which he carried with him into Chanaan was exactly the same with that of his family which he relinguage spo- quished when he began his peregrinations. But if this

18

The He

the same, and the

first lan

ken on

earth.

be true, it will follow, that the language afterwards de- Language. nominated Hebrew, and that of the Chasidim or Chaldeans, were originally one and the same. This position, we think, will not be controverted. There is then an end of the dispute concerning the original language of mankind. We have advanced some presumptive proofs in the preceding pages, that the language of Adam was transmitted to Noah, and that the dialect of the latter was preserved in the line of Arphaxad downwards to the family of Abraham and it now appears that the Hebrew and Chaldean were originally spoken by the same family, and of course were the same between themselves, and were actually the first language upon earth, according to the Mosaic history. Numberless additions, alterations, improvements, we acknowledge, were introduced in the course of 2000 years; but still the original stamina of the language were unchanged. Our readers will please to observe that the Orientals are not a people given to change; and that this character, in the earliest ages, was still more prevalent than at present. This assertion, we presume, needs no proof.

In confirmation of these presumptive arguments, we may add the popular one which is commonly urged upon this occasion, viz. that the names of antediluvian persons and places mentioned by the sacred historian, are generally of Hebrew original, and significant in that language. Some of them, we acknowledge, are not so; but in this case it ought to be remembered, that a very small part of that language now exists, and that probably the radicals from which these words are descended are among the number of those which have long been lost.

SECT. I. The Hebrew Language.

19

HAVING thus proved the priority of the Hebrew Characteristics of the to every other language that has been spoken by men, Hebrew we shall now proceed to consider its nature and genius; language. from which it will appear still more evidently to be an 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. Its compounds are few, and inartificially joined together. In it we find few of those artificial affixes which distinguish the other cognate dialects; such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian, Phœnician, &c. We find in it no traces of improvement from the age of Moses to the era of the Babylonish captivity. The age of David and Solomon was the golden period of the Hebrew tongue; and yet, in our opinion, it would puzzle a critic of the nicest acumen to discover much improvement even during that happy era. fact, the Jews were by no means an inventive people. We hear nothing of their progress in literary pursuits; nor do they seem to have been industrious in borrowing from their neighbours. The laws and statutes communicated by Moses were the principal objects of their studies. These they were commanded to contemplate day and night; and in them they were to place their chief delight. The consequence of this command was, that little or no regard could be paid to taste, or any other

In

subject

Hebrew subject of philosophical investigation. Every unimproLanguage. ved language abounds in figurative expressions borrow ed from sensible objects. This is in a peculiar manner the characteristic of the language in question; of which it would be superfluous to produce instances, as the fact: must be obvious even to the attentive reader of the English Bible.

20

How it

In the course of this argument, we think it ought to be oberved, and we deem it an observation of the greatest importance, that if we compare the other languages which have claimed the prize of originality from the Hebrew with that dialect, we shall quickly be convinced that the latter has a just title to the preference. The writers who have treated this subject, generally bring into competition the Hebrew, Chaldean, Syrian, and Arabian. Some one or other of these bas commonly been thought the original language of mankind. The arguments for the Syrian and Arabian are altogether futile. The numerous improvements superinduced upon these languages, evidently prove that they could not have been the original language. In all cognate dialects, etymologists hold it as a maxim, that the least improved is likely to be the most ancient.

We have observed above, that the language of Abraham and that of the Chesedim or Chaldeans were originally the same; and we are persuaded, that if an able critic should take the pains to examine strictly these two languages, and to take from each what may reasonably be supposed to have been improvements or additions since the age of Abraham, he will find intrinsic evidence sufficient to convince him of the truth of this position, There appear still in the Chaldean tongue great numbers of (F) words the same with the Hebrew, perhaps as many as mankind had occasion for in the most early ages; and much greater numbers would probably be found if both languages had come down to us entire. The construction of the two languages is indeed somewhat was chang- different; but this difference arises chiefly from the superior improvement of the Chaldean. While the Hebrew language was in a manner stationary, the Chaldean underwent progressive improvements; was mellowed by antitheses, rendered sonorous by the disposition of vocal sounds, acquired a copiousness by compounds, and a majesty by affixes and prefixes, &c. In process of time, however, the difference became so great, that the Israelites did not understand the Chaldean language at the era of the Babylonish captivity. This much the prophet* intimates, when he promises the pious Jews protection "from a fierce people; a people of a deeper speech than they could perceive; of a stammering tongue, that they could not understand.”

ed into what is called the Chaldean.

Isaiah, ch. xxxiii. verse 19.

+ Brit.

The priority of the Chaldean tongue is indeed contended for by very learned writers. Camden + calls it the mother of all languages; and most of the fathers Præf. ad were of the same opinion. Ámira has made a col

Gram. Syr.

lection of arguments, not inconsiderable, in favour of Hebrew it; and Myriceus f after him, did the same. Erpe. Language. nius ||, in his Oration for the Hebrew tongue, thought $ the argument for it and the Chaldean so equal, that he Præf. ad did not choose to take upon him to determine the ques- Chald. tion.

Gram.

Oratio

Hebr. xii.

ty

21

Many circumstances, however, concur to make us de tingua assign the priority to the Hebrew, or rather to make us believe that it has suffered fewest of those changes to which every living tongue is more or less liable. If we strip this language of every thing obviously adventitious, we shall find it extremely simple and primitive. 1. Every thing masoretical, supposing the vowels and points (G) essential, was certainly unknown in its ori- Reasons ginal character. 2. All the prefixed and affixed letters for mainwere added time after time, to give more compass and taining the prioriprecision to the language. 3. The various voices, to the moods, tenses, numbers, and persons of verbs, were Hebrew. posterior improvements; for in that tongue, nothing at first appeared but the indeclinable radix. 4. In the same manner, the few adjectives that occur in the language, and the numbers and regimen of nouns, were not from the beginning. 5. Most of the Hebrew nouns are derived from verbs; indeed many of them are written with the very same letters. This rule, however, is not general; for often verbs are derived from nouns, and even some from prepositions. 6. All the verbs of that language, at least all that originally belonged to it, uniformly consist of three letters, and seem to have been at first pronounced as monosyllables. If we anatomize the Hebrew language in this manner, we shall reduce it to very great simplicity; we shall confine it to a few names of things, persons, and actions; we shall make all its words monosyllables, and give it the true charaeters of an original language. If at the same time we reflect on the small number of (H) radical words in that dialect, we shall be more and more convinced of its originality.

It will not be expected that we should enter into a minute discussion of the grammatical peculiarities of this ancient language. For these we must refer our readers to the numerous and elaborate grammars of that tongue, which are everywhere easily to be found. We shall only make a few strictures, which naturally present themselves, before we dismiss the subject.

22

The generality of writers who have maintained the superior antiquity of the Hebrew language, have at the same time contended that all other languages of Asia, and most of those of Europe, have been derived from that tongue as their source and matrix. We, for our All lanpart, are of opinion, that perhaps all the languages in guages in the eastern part of the globe were coeval with it, and the east originally were originally one and the same; and that the differthe same. ences which after wards distinguished them sprung from climate, caprice, inventions, religions, commerce, conquests,

002

Hebrew quests, and other accidental causes, which will occur Language to our intelligent readers. We have endeavoured to

*Clem. Alex. Strom.

Chron. lib.

prove, in the preceding pages, that all mankind were not concerned in the building of the fatal tower, nor affected by the punishment consequent upon that attempt and we now add, that even that punishment was only temporary; since we find, that those very Hamites or Cushim, who are allowed to have been affected by it, did certainly afterwards recover the former organization of their lip, and differed not more from the original standard than the descendants of Japbet and Shem.

The Jewish rabbis have pretended to ascertain the number of languages generated by the vengeance of Heaven at the building of Babel. They tell us that mankind was divided into 70 nations and 70 languages, and that each of these nations had its tutelar or guardian angel. This fabulous legend is founded on the number of the progeny of Jacob at the time when that patriarch and his family went down into Egypt. Others attribute its origin to the number of the sons and grandsons of Noah, who are enumerated Gen. chap. x.

The fathers of the church make the languages at the confusion to amount to 72; which number they complete by adding Cainan and Elishah, according to Euseb. the Septuagint, who are not mentioned in the Hebrew 1. Epiphan, text. This opinion, they think, is supported by the Hæres. words of Moses, when he saith, that "when the Most August.&c. High divided to the nations their inheritance, when + Deut. he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of chap. xxxii. the people according to the number of the tribes of verse 8. Israel." That is, say they, he divided them into 72 nations, which was the number of the children of Israel when they came into Egypt. The Targura of BenUzziel plainly favours this interpretation; but the Jerusalem Targum intimates that the number of nations was only 12, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. This passage, however, seems to refer to the tribes of the Chanaanim; and imports, that the Almighty assigned to the different septs of that family such a tract of land as he knew would make a sufficient inheri+ Pacanini tance for the children of Israel ‡. Others have increasEpiscop. ed the different languages of the dispersion to 120; but Bercun. the general opinion has fixed them to 70 or 72. Our apud Hier. readers need scarce be put in mind that these opinions on in Catalogo Epist. are futile and absurd; neither founded in Scripture, profane history, or common sense. At the same time, it § 14 page must not be omitted, that according to Horapollo §, the 25 Hoesch. Egyptians held, that the world was divided into 72 habitable regions; and that, in consequence of this tradition, they made the cynocephalus the emblem of the world, because that in the space of 72 days that animal pines away and dies.

22.

23

Hebrew.

Origin of It has been made a question, whether the Hebrew the name language was denominated from Heber the progenitor of Abraham, or from a word which in that tongue imports over, beyond. Most of the Christian fathers, prior to St Origen, believed that both the Gentile name Hebrew, and the name of the language, were derived from the name of the patriarch; but that learned man

imagined, that Abraham was called the Hebrew, not Hebrew because he was a descendant of Heber, but because he Language. was a transfluvianus, or from beyond the river Euphrates.

lib. i. c. 15.

The learned Bochart has strained bard * Phaleg. to prove the former position; but to us his arguments do not appear decisive. We are rather inclined to believe, that Abraham was called Chibri, (Hebrew), from the situation of the country from which he emigrated when he came to the country of Chanaan; aud that in process of time that word became a Gentile appellation, and was afterwards applied to his posterity (1) often by way of reproach, much in the same manner as we say a Northlander, a Norman, a Tramontane, &c.

Here we may be indulged an observation, namely, that Abraham, a Hebrew, lived among the Chaldeans, travelled among the Chanaanites, sojourned among the Philistines, lived some time in Egypt, and in all appearance conversed with all those nations without any apparent difficulty. This circumstance plainly proves, that all these nations at that time spoke nearly the same language. The nations had not yet begun to improve their respective dialects, nor to deviate in any great measure from the monosyllablic tongue of the Hebrews. With respect to the language of Chanaan, afterwards the Phoenician, its similarity to the Hebrew is obvious from the names of gods, men, cities, mountains, rivers, &c. which are the very same in both tongues, as might be shown in numberless cases, were this a proper place for etymological researches.

Before we dismiss this part of our subject, we would wish to gratify our unlearned readers with a brief account of the Hebrew letters, and of the Masoretical points which have in a manner been ingrafted on these letters. In the course of this deduction, we shall endeavour to follow such authors as are allowed to have handled that matter with the greatest acuteness, learning, and perspicuity. If upon any occasion, we should be tempted to hazard a conjecture of our own, it is cheerfully submitted to the candour of the pu blic.

Much has been written, and numberless hypotheses proposed, with a view to investigate the origin of alphabetical writing. To give even an abridged account of all these, would fill many volumes. The most plausible, in our opinion, is that which supposes that the primary characters employed by men were the figures of material objects, analogous to those of the Mexicans, so often mentioned by the authors who have written the history of that people at the era of the Spanish invasion of their country. As this plan was too much circum- Origin of scribed to be generally useful, hieroglyphical figures alphabetic were in process of time invented as subsidiaries to this writing. contracted orthography. In this scheme, we imagine, the process was somewhat more extensive. A lion might be sketched, to import fierceness or valour; an or, to denote strength; a stag, to signify swiftness; a hare, to intimate timorousness, &c.

The next step in this process would naturally extend

to

24

Hebrew to the inventing and appropriating of a few arbitrary Language. characters, for representing abstract ideas, and other relations, which could not be well ascertained by the methods above mentioned. These arbitrary signs might readily acquire a currency by compact, as money and medals do over a great part of the world.-Upon this plan we imagine the ancient Chinese formed their language.

But neither the picture nor the hieroglyphic, nor the method of denoting ideas by arbitrary characters appropriated by compact, could ever have arrived at such perfection as to answer all the purposes of ideal communication. The grand desideratum then would be to fabricate characters to represent simple sounds, and to reduce these characters to so small a number as to be easily learned and preserved in the memory. In this attempt the Chinese have notoriously failed; their letters, or rather their characters, are so numerous, that few, if any, of their most learned and industrious authors, have been able to learn and retain the whole catalogue. Indeed those people are not able to conceive how any combinations of 20 or 30 characters should be competent to answers all the purposes of written language.

Many different nations have claimed the honour of this invention. The Greeks ascribed it to the Pho*Hesych. nicians; and consequently used the word *,

to act the Phoenician, in the same sense with avaynox, † Lucan. to read; and consequently the poet † ascribes the invention to the same ingenious people. The Greeks borrowed their letters from the Phoenicians, and of course looked up to them as the inventors.

Others have attributed the invention to the Egyptians. That people ascribed every useful and ingenious invention to their Thyoth, or Mercury Trismegistus. Plato seems to have believed this tradition (K), and pretends to record a dispute between the king of Egypt that then reigned and this personage, with respect to the influence that the art of alphabetic writing might possibly have upon the improvements of mankind in science Bibl. lib. i. and liberal arts. Diodorus the Sicilian ‡ gives a similar history of the same invention, but carries it back to the reign of Osiris.

page 10. Steph. Nat. Hist. lib. vii. C. 46.

Pliny informs us §, that Gellius attributed letters to the same Egyptian Mercury, and others to the Sy. rians; but that for "his part, he thought that the Assyrian letters were eternal." That learned Roman then imagined, that the Assyrian letters had existed at a period prior to all the records of history; which was in fact the case. By the Assyrian letters, he must mean the Chaldaic, and by the Syrian probably the Hebrew. The earliest Greek historians generally confound the Jews with the Syrians. Herodotus, enumerating the Libii. people who had learned circumcision from the Egyptians, mentions the Syrians of Palestine; and elsewhere he tells us, that Necho beat the Syrians, and took Cadytis, a large and populous city belonging to that people. Hence it is evident that the Syrian alphabet, or the Sy

c. 104. * Ibid. c. 159.

rian letters, were the same with the Hebrew. That the Hebrew Assyrian or Chaldaic and Hebrew languages were the Language. same, has, we hope, been fully proved already: that their letters were the same in the original structure, can scarce be controverted. These letters, we think, were 25 Antediluantediluvian; whether, to use the expression of Plato, they were dictated by some god, or fabricated by some man divinely inspired. As this opinion may admit some dispute, we shall take the liberty to subjoin our

reasons.

1. It appears that the era of this invention is buried in impenetrable obscurity. Had an invention of such capital importance to mankind been made in the postdiluvian ages, we imagine the author would have been commemorated in the historical annals of the country where he lived (L).

2. The art of writing in alphabetical characters, according to the sacred records, was practised at so early a period, that there was not a long enough interval between that and the deluge to give birth to that noble invention. If we consider the state of the world during some ages after that disastrous event, we shall quickly be convinced that little respite could be found from the labour and industry indispensably requisite to provide the necessaries, and only a few of the conveniences, of life. Such a state of things was certainly most unfavourable to the invention of those arts and improvements which contribute nothing towards procuring the accommodations of life. The consequence is obvious.

Moses has recorded the history of the creation, of a few of the capital transactions of the antediluvian world, the birth, the age, the death, of the lineal descendants of Seth. He has preserved the dimensions of the ark, the duration of the universal deluge, its effects upon man and all terrestrial animals, the population of the world by the posterity of Noah, the age, &c. of the patriarchs of the line of Shem, from which his own an cestors had sprung. To this he has subjoined the petty occurrences which diversified the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants. Whence did the historian derive his information? We believe few of our readers will be so enthusiastic as to imagine that the author received it from divine inspiration. Tradition is a fallible guide; and in many cases the accounts are so minutely precise, as to defy the power of that species of conveyance. The inspired author must certainly have extracted his abridgement from written memoirs, or histories of the transactions of his ancestors regularly transmitted from the most early periods. These annals he probably abridged, as Ezra did afterwards the history of the kings of Israel. If this was the case, as it most certainly was, the art of writing in alphabetical letters must have been known and practised many ages before Moses. It has indeed been pretended, that the Jewish decalogue, inscribed upon two tables of stone, was the very first specimen of alphabetical writing. The arguments adduced in proof of this fact are lame and incon

clusive

vian.