sufficiently clear; and a critical and exegetical one, such as Rosenmüller's on the Old, and Kuinoel's on the New Testament, so far from lending the desired assistance, we venture to say, can neither be fully understood nor estimated without a previous knowledge to some extent of the originals themselves. Provided, moreover, they could be understood, the person who trusts to them wholly, without being able to investigate for himself, cannot be sure a single moment that he is not the dupe of the commentator, or that the commentator is not himself deceived.

And while in regard to public teachers of religion, we maintain that a suitable knowledge of the Bible cannot be acquired from translations merely, and commentaries, we may add, as a further inducement for the acquisition of such knowledge, that without it a person will be unable, not only to answer those, who when disputed appeal to the originals, but will be equally unable to defend with any hope of success the genuineness of the sacred writings. If any one, for instance, should undertake to show that the gospel of Luke or the prophecies of Isaiah were written at the time and in the circumstances, in which they profess to have been, without a knowledge of those peculiarities of style, which can be learnt only by an acquaintance with the originals, he would certainly show himself to have undertaken a task altogether above his ability. We would gladly extend our remarks on this point, but we can only say at present, we hope, the clerical associations and presbyteries of our country will not, by lending the sanction of their authority, encourage young men to go forth in the high character of heralds of the cross, without that thorough and fundamental knowledge of the Bible, for which Jahn and his translator so strenuously and reasonably contend. If they are too dull to learn, it is much the wisest to conclude, that the Deity never intended them for his ambassadors, and if too indolent, there is no hazard in considering it as certain that he wants no such degenerate workmen in his vineyard. It is not merely the study of the Hebrew, which is urged upon us in these dissertations; we are invited likewise to the study of its related dialects, and on this point also we should do injustice to our feelings, were we not to express our opinions, however concisely. The Hebrew is a dialect of an ancient language, which was spoken originally in Palestine, Syria, Phoenicia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Ethiopia, and Babylon. Although the dialects of this

widely diffused and ancient language are nearly related to each other, and show themselves at first glance to be sisters of the same family, they may conveniently be divided into three principal classes. The first is the Aramæan, so called from the Hebrew word, the biblical name for Syria and the adjacent countries, which divided itself again into the provincial dialects, denominated the east and west Aramæan, or Chaldaic and Syriac. The second class comprehends the Canaanitish, or Hebrew, and the Phoenician, of which last, however, there are but very few remains. The third embraces the Arabic and Æthiopic. The Samaritan appears to be a mixture of the Hebrew and Aramæan. By Jerome and others of the fathers these dialects were denominated Oriental, but the term appearing to be too general, Eichhorn has introduced another, and chooses to denominate them the Shemitish. To the latter term, however, as well as the former, there is an objection, inasmuch as the Canaanites and Ethiopians were descendants of Ham, instead of Shem. But as it is of no essential consequence which term we use, provided we understand what is meant by it, we shall content ourselves for the present with applying to the dialects, which have been mentioned, indifferently either of the terms, Shemitish or Oriental. The acquisition of these dialects is quite easy to one, as will readily be imagined, who is well grounded in the Hebrew, and, although a man may become a respectable and highly useful minister without them, a knowledge of them, especially of the Aramæan and Arabic, is very desirable. At least, those who deny the utility of such knowledge would do well to remember that a portion of the Old Testament, and that not a very small one, is written in the dialect of Aram, and that we are bound to study this dialect for the same cause, although the obligation is of less urgency, that we are bound to study the Hebrew or the Greek of the New Testament.

The parts of the Old Testament written in Chaldee are Daniel, from the fourth verse of the second, to the commencemont of the eighth chapter; and Ezra, from the eighth verse of the fourth, to the twenty seventh of the seventh chapter. It ought to be remembered also, that this dialect is very similar to the Hebrew, both in the construction of its sentences and the signification of its words, as might be expected from its being one of the same kindred. Hence we are often enabled by its assistance to illustrate the meaning of an obscure word,

6

and to explain a difficult construction. The truth of this assertion, in respect to the Chaldee, and equally so in regard to the Arabic and Syriac, will be sufficiently clear by turning to any able exegetical commentary on the Bible. And this is so easily done, that we do not deem it necessary to introduce instances here in proof of it. A reference to the cognate dialects of the Hebrew is found particularly necessary and useful in the explanation of those difficult words which occur but once in the Hebrew, and are technically denominated "A λεγόμενα. There are many pure Aramæan words found scattered in different parts of Job, Ecclesiastes, and other books of the Old Testament, and Aramæan forms, both of verbs and nouns, are not unfrequent. The aid, which the cognate dialects of the Hebrew afford in the interpretation of the Bible, is not limited to the Old Testament; they throw light also on a number of obscure passages in the New. Several expressions of the New Testament,' says J. D. Michaelis in his introduction to it, 'receive great light from the Arabic. I will not call such passages Arabisms, though many of the sermons of Christ were held on the eastern or Arabian side of the Jordan, where John the Baptist chiefly resided, and many other opportunities might have introduced Arabic expressions into the language of Palestine. The oriental languages have a striking affinity with each other; but as we know more of the Arabic, than of either Hebrew, Chaldee, or Syriac, it is not surprising that many passages of the New Testament can be explained from that language alone.' The Chaldee Targums, so called from the Chaldee word 1, which signifies Interpretation or Paraphrase, particularly those of Onkelos and Jonathan, have been and always will be held in estimation by the theologian, for the testimony which they afford to the genuineness of the present Hebrew text, and for the helps they offer for the better understanding both of the Old and New Testament. They are spoken of by Bishop Walton, whose merits, as an oriental scholar, no one will dispute, in the following favorable terms, selected from his Prolegomena. Primo, textui Hebræo testimonium ferunt, ejusque integritatem confirmant. Secundo, in multis locis articulos fidei Christianæ confirmant, et contra Judæos fortissima argumenta suppeditant. Tertio, in textibus difficilibus, locis obscuris, et vocabulis inusitatis multum lucis afferunt. Dum ritus, consuetudines, historias, vocabulorum significationem genuinam, sensumque

literalem explicant, quæ ipsis ex majorum traditione accepta, melius quam nobis nota erant.' The Phoenician, one of the Shemitish dialects, has become, as before remarked, nearly extinct. The history of the Samaritans is interesting on account of their connexion with the Jews, being of a like origin and a kindred religion; but the treasures of their language are so small, that the acquisition of it may be properly superseded by other studies of more prominent and real importance. Perhaps the same may be said with equal justice of the Æthiopic, especially as it is so intimately connected with the Arabic, that a knowledge of the latter will afford nearly all the aid, which could be derived from a combined acquaintance with both. The Samaritan Pentateuch, which was unknown in Europe till the seventeenth century, although quoted by the Fathers, was at length procured from the east by archbishop Usher, and was printed by Morinus in 1632 from a copy deposited in the oratory of St Honoré. It at first, as might be expected, excited much curiosity, but, although ancient, its authority and value are not wisely placed above, nor put in competition with the worth of the Hebrew text. The Samaritan Pentateuch, together with the Psalms, Song of Solomon, and New Testament, in Æthiopic, may be found in Walton's Polyglott.

From these remarks, it will be easy to infer our opinion respecting the study of the cognate dialects of the Hebrew. To a professed biblical critic, one who makes the interpretation of the Bible his whole study, they are all of them important, but we should find no fault with the ordinary theologian, if he should exercise the wisdom and summon up the resolution to become acquainted merely with the Aramæan and the Arabic.

These, the Arabic and the Aramæan, which includes the Chaldee and Syriac, we trust will never be neglected by our young men, (those, we mean, who are preparing for the pulpit,) from principle, although we fear they will often be neglected from necessity. The Arabic in particular is not a language, like the others, which was living, but is dead, whose great men flourished, but are no more, whose works existed, but have perished. It is a living language, is very extensively spoken, and is worthy of peculiar attention. A vast number of Arabian writers flourished during that dark period, when Europe was enveloped in ignorance. Animated with New Series, No. 9. 8

the true literary ardor, they seized and transmitted the torch of science,' when, if it had been left to other hands, it would have fallen and been extinguished. Under the patronage of Almamun, who was a great lover of learning, they translated the best Greek authors, and they did not want among themselves for men, who excelled in history, in poetry, in mathematics, and medicine. With how much sweetness and simplicity they could touch the lyre of the muses is known to many of our readers from the 'Specimens of Arabian Poetry,' which Professor Carlyle presented to the English public. În justice to the fine taste and poetical feeling, as well as the scholarship of their amiable translator, we cannot forbear copying one of these specimens. It is written by Ben Yousef, who for many years acted as vizier to Abou Nasser, sultan of Diarbeker. He was passionately devoted to literature, notwithstanding his high station in political life, and composed the following stanzas, as in his travels he passed through the beautiful valley of Bozáa:

'The intertwining boughs for thee

Have wove, sweet dell, a verdant vest,
And thou in turn shall give to me,

A verdant couch upon thy breast.

To shield me from day's fervid glare
Thine oaks their fostering arms extend,

As anxious o'er her infant care

I've seen a watchful mother bend.

A brighter cup, a sweeter draught,
I gather from that rill of thine,

Than maddening drunkards ever quaffed,
Than all the treasures of the vine.

So smooth the pebbles on its shore,

That not a maid can thither stray,

But counts her strings of jewels o'er,

And thinks the pearls have slipped away.'

Princes were poets, and in many instances the sons of song were treated like princes. If our readers wish to be further informed on the subject of the Arabic and the other related dialects, to understand the treasures they contain and their connexion with biblical criticism, we refer them to the Dissertations before us, particularly that of Jahn, and note G of Professor Stuart. Such works also, as Sismondi's Literature of the South of Europe, Gesenius' Geschichte der Hebräischen Sprache und Schrift, Eichhorn's Einleitung, and Walton's Prolegomena are calculated to give some true idea both of its nature and importance.