DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE ANTIQUITY OF THE HEBREW-LANGUAGE,

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

LETTERS, VOWEL-POINTS, AND ACCENTS.

BY JOHN GILL, D.D.

Imo vero censeo, nullius mortalis, licet in Hebraeis literis docte versati, tantum esse acumen, peritiam, perspicaciam, ut prophetae nostro (Jesaiae) longe pluribus locis reddere potuerit genuinum, suum sensum; nisi lectio antiqua synagogica per traditionem in scholis Hebraeorum suisset conservata, ut eam nunc Masoretharum punctulis expressam habemus: quorum proinde studium et laborem nemo pro merito depraedicet. Quod enim in hoc viridario deliciari possimus, ipsis debemus, viris perinde doctis et acri judicio praeditis. Vitringa, Praesat. ad Comment. in Jesaiam, Vol. 1. p. 5. LONDON,PRINTED:

And Sold by G.KEITH, in Gracechurch-Street; J.FLETCHER, at Oxford; T. and J.MERRILL, at Cambridge; A.DONALDSON and W.GRAY, at Edinburgh; J.BRYCE, at Glasgow; A.ANGUS, at Aberdeen; and P. WILSON, at Dublin. 1767.

THE PREFACE.

THE following Dissertation has long lain by me; nor was it written at first with any design to publish it to the world; but was written at leisure-hours for my own amusement, and by way of essay to try how far back the antiquity of the things treated of in it could be carried. And what has prevailed upon me now to let it go into the world, and take its fate in it, are the confidence which some late writers on the opposite side have expressed, their contempt of others that differ from them, and the air of triumph they have assumed, as if victory was proclaimed on their side, and the controversy at an end, which is far from being the case; and what seeming advantages are obtained, are chiefly owing to the indolence and sloth of men, who read only on one side of the question, and such who write one after another, and take things upon trust, without examining into them themselves, either through want of ability, or through unwillingness to be at any pains about it.

ICONFESS, it has given me offense to observe the Jews called by such opprobrious names, as villains, willful corrupters of the Hebrew text, etc. It must be owned indeed, that they are very ignorant of divine things, and therefore the more to be pitied; and many of them are, no doubt, very immoral persons; but have we not such of both sorts among ourselves? yet, as bad as the Jews are, the worst among them, I believe, would sooner die, than willfully corrupt any part of the Hebrew Bible. We should not bear witness against our neighbors, let them be as bad as they may in other things. I have never, as yet, seen nor read anything, that has convinced me that they have willfully corrupted any one passage in the sacred text, no not that celebrated one in Psalm 22:16. Their copiers indeed may have made mistakes in transcribing, which are common to all writings; and the Jews meeting with a various reading, they may have preferred one to another, which made most for their own sentiments; nor is this to be wondered at, nor are they to be blamed for it. It lies upon us to rectify the mistake, and confirm the true reading.

IT does not a p pear, that there ever was any period of time, in which the Jews would or could have corrupted the Hebrew text; not before the coming of Christ, for then they could have no disposition nor temptation to it; and to attempt it would have been to have risked the credit of the prophecies in it; nor could they be sure of any advantage by it: and after the coming of Christ, it was not in their power to do it without detection.

There were the twelve apostles of Christ, who were with him from the beginning of his ministry, and the seventy disciples preachers of his gospel, besides many thousands of Jews in Jersualem, who in a short time believed in him; and can it be supposed that all these were without an Hebrew Bible? and particularly that learned man, the apostle Paul, brought up at the feet of a learned Rabbi, Gamaliel; and who out of those writings convinced so many that Jesus was the Christ, and who speaks of the Jews as having the privilege of the oracles of God committed to them <450301>Romans 3:1, 2. nor does he charge them, nor does he give the least intimation of their being chargeable, with the corruption of them; nor does Christ, nor do any of the apostles ever charge them with anything of this kind. And besides, there were multitudes of the Jews in all parts of the world at this time, where the apostles met with them and converted many of them to Christ, who, they and their fathers, had lived in a state of dispersion many years; and can it be thought, they should be without copies of the Hebrew Bible, whatever use they may be supposed to have made of the Greek version? so that it does not seem credible, that the Jews should have it in their power, had they an inclination to it, to corrupt the text without detection. And here I cannot forbear transcribing a passage from Jerom, who observes, in answer to those who say the Hebrew books were corrupted by the Jews, what Origin s aid, "that Christ and his apostles, who reproved the Jews for other crimes, are quite silent about this, the greatest of all." Jerom adds "if they should say, that they were corrupted after the coming of the Lord, the Savior, and the preaching of the apostles; I cannot forbear laughing, that the Savior, the evangelists and apostles should so produce testimonies that the Jews afterwards should corrupt."

To all which may be added, that the Jews are a people always tenacious of their own writings, and of preferring them pure and incorrupt: an instance of this we have in their Targums or paraphrases, which they had in their own hands hundreds of years, before it appears they were known by Christians; in which interval, it lay in their power to make what alterations in them they pleased; and had they been addicted to such practices, it is marvelous they did not; since they could not but observe, there were many things in them, that Christians were capable of improving against them, should they come into their hands, as in fact they have done; and yet they never dared to make any alterations in them: and had they done anything of this kind, it is most reasonable to believe, they would have altered the passages relating to the Messiah; and yet those, and which are many, stand full against them. Indeed, according to Origen, as some think, the Targums were known very early, and improved against the Jews in favor of Jesus being the true Messiah, agreeable to the sense of the prophets; since he makes mention of a dispute between Jason, an Hebrew- Christian, s upposed to be the fame as in Acts 17:5. and Papiscus, a Jew; in which, he says, the Christian shewed from Jewish writings, that the prophecies concerning Christ agreed with Jesus; and what else, says Dr. Allix , could he mean by Jewish writings, but the Targums? though it is possible the writings of the Old Testament may be meant, by which the apostle Paul also proved that Jesus was the Christ. However, if the Targums are meant, they do not afterwards appear to have been known by christian writers for some hundreds of years.

IT may be said, perhaps, that the Jews are self-condemned, and that it may be proved out of their own mouths and writings, that they have in some places willfully corrupted the Hebrew text; as the thirteen places they own they changed, on the account of Ptolemy king of Egypt; and also what they call Tikkun Sopherim, the ordination of the scribes, and Ittur Sopherim, the ablation of the scribes: as to the first of there, it is true, that they say, f5 when Ptolemy king of Egypt desired to have their law, and seventy men sent to translate it, that they made alterations in the copy they sent; but then it should be observed, that they do not say they made any alteration in their own copies, only in that they sent to him; and which appears also to be a mere fable of the Talmudists, and that in fact no such alterations were made: but the story was invented, partly to bring into disgrace the Greek version of the Seventy, as if it was made after a corrupt copy; and partly to make the minds of their own people easy, who disapproved of that work, and kept a fast on occasion of it. My reason for this is, because the Greek version does not correspond with the pretended alterations. There are but two places out of the thirteen, which agree with them; the one is in Genesis 2:2 which the Seventy translate, and on the sixth day God ended his work; the other is in Numbers 16:15 which they render I have not taken the desire of any one of them, instead of one ass from them; neither of which seem to arise from a bad copy before them, but from some other cause. The first of them is not peculiar to the Septuagint, it is the fame in the Samaritan Pentateuch; and the latter plainly arises from the similarity of the letters Daleth and Resh . There is a third, Exodus 12:40 in which there is some agreement, but not exact. Besides, neither Philo the Jew, nor Josephus, though they wrote very particularly of this affair of Ptolemy, yet make not the least mention of these alterations, in the copy sent to him, nor in the translation of it. They observe, there never was any change made in the sacred writings, from the time of the writing of them to the age in which they lived. Philo s ays, the Jews, "for the space of more than two thousand years, never changed one word of what was written by Moses, but would rather die a thousand times, than receive any thing contrary to his laws and customs." Josephus observes, "it is plain, in fact, what credit we give to our writings, for that so long a space of time has run out, yet no one ever dared, neither to add, nor to take away, nor to change any thing."

And Walton himself, I observe, reckons this story about the alterations for the sake of King Ptolemy, to be a Rabbinical fable; and, as such, Jerom had got a hint of it from one of his Rabbins.

THE Tikkun Sopherim, or ordination of the scribes, is supposed to be the order of Ezra, as it is said in the Masorah on Exodus 34:11 and on Numbers 12:12 and of his colleagues; though some think it is no other than the order or instruction of the inspired writers themselves. It respects eighteen passages in the Bible, so expressed, as that some smatterers in knowledge might gather from the context, that something else is intended than what is written; and so suspect a corruption in the text, and take upon them to alter it. Now this ordination of the scribes, as it is called, is so far from implying a corruption itself, and from encouraging an attempt to make an alteration in the text, that it is just the reverse; it is an ordination that the text should be read no otherwise than it is; and would have it remarked, that the words so read, and which are the words of the inspired writer, contain an Euphemy in them, what is decent and becoming the majesty of God; when, if they were read, as the context might be thought to require they should be read, they would express what is derogatory to the glory of the Divine Being. Thus, in the first of the places, this ordination respects, Genesis 18:22. Abraham stood yet before the Lord; it might seem to some from the context, that the Lord descended to stand before Abraham; but as this might be thought derogatory to the glory of God, the inspired writer chose to express it as he has done; and the design of what is called the ordination of the scribes, is to establish it, and to admonish that none should dare to alter it; and so it was to prevent an alteration, and not to make one; they made no change at all, far be it from them, as Elias Levita s ays. As for the Ittur Sopherim, or ablation of the scribes, that is only the removal of a superfluous Vau in five places; not that it was in the text, and removed from it by them, but what the common people pronounced in reading, as if it was there; which reading the scribes forbid, to secure and preserve the integrity of the text; and which prohibition of it to the common people, is called a taking it away; though in reality it never was in the text, only pronounced by the vulgar.

THERE is a passage in the Talmud, produced by some, as a proof that the Jews s tudiously corrupted the scriptures, and allowed of it, when an end was to be answered by it; which is this, "it is better that one letter be rooted out of the law, than that the name of God should be prophaned openly;" but their sense is not that any letter should be taken, or that it was lawful to take any letter out of any word in the law, to alter the sense of it, in order to serve that, or any other purpose; but that a lesser command should give way to a greater: as for instance, that the law concerning not putting children to death for the sins of their parents, and of not suffering bodies hanged on a tree to remain so in the night, should give way to a greater command concerning sanctifying the name of God publicly; as in the case of Saul's s ons being given to the Gibeonites to be put to death, and whose bodies continued hanging a considerable time, which is the case under consideration in the Talmudic passage referred to; and the sense is, that it was better that the law in Deuteronomy 24:16 should be violated, rather than the name of God should be profaned; which would have been the case, if the sons of Saul had not been given up to the Gibeonites to be put to death for their father's sins, because of the oath of Joshua and the princes of Israel to them. The falsifications charged upon the Jews by Justin and Origen respect not the Hebrew text, but the Septuagint version; and even, with respect to that, Trypho, the Jew, rejects the charge brought by Justin as incredible; whether, says he, they have detracted from the scripture, God knows; it seems incredible.

IT has been very confidently affirmed, that there is no mention made of the Hebrew vowel-points and accents, neither in the Misnah nor in the Talmud: and this is said by some learned men, who, one would think, were capable of looking into those writings themselves, and not take things upon trust, and write after other authors, without seeing with their own eyes, and examining for themselves, whether these things be so or no; in this they are very culpable, and their mistakes are quite inexcusable. But to hear some men prate about the Talmud, a book, perhaps, which they never saw; and about the Masorah and Masoretic notes, one of which, as short as they be, they could never read, is quite intolerable. These men are like such the apostle speaks of, on another account, who understand, neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. What is this Masorah? who are these Masoretes? and what have they done, that such an outrageous clamor is raised against them? to me, they seem to be an innocent sort of men; who, if they have done no good, have done no hurt. Did they invent the vowelpoints, and add them to the text, against which there is so much wrath and fury vented? to assert this is the height of folly; for if they were the authors of the points, the inventors of the art of pointing, and reduced it to certain rules agreeable to the nature of the language, and were expert in that art, as, no doubt, they were, why did not they point the Bible regularly, and according to the art of pointing at once? why did they leave so many anomalies or irregular punctuations? and if, upon a survey of their work, they observed the irregularities they had committed, why did not they mend their work, by casting out the irregular points and putting regular ones in the text itself, and not point to them in the margin? or there direct to the true reading? is it usual for authors to -animadvert on their own work in such a manner? if they make mistakes in their work at first, is it usual in an after edition, and following editions, to continue such mistakes in the body of the work, and put the corrections of them in the margin? The Masoretes, had they been the inventors of the vowel-points, would never have put them to a word in the text, to which they were not proper, but what better agree with a word placed by them in the margin; had they invented them, they would have put proper ones to the word in the text; or have removed that, and put the word in the margin in its room, with which they agree, see Genesis 8:17 and 14:3 and it may be observed, that their critical art and notes are not only frequently exercised and made upon the points, but even upon the points without consonants, and upon consonants without points; which would not have become them, had they been the inventors of them; see an instance of each in Jeremiah 31:38 and 51:3. The truth of the matter, with respect to the Masoretes, is, that the pointing of the Bible was not their work; they considered it as of a divine original, and therefore dared not to make any alteration in it; but only observed, where there was an unusual punctuation, that it might be taken notice of; and that so they found it, and so they left it; and that those who came after them might not dare to attempt an alteration. Punctuation was made before their time, as their work itself shows; and Walton, an opposer of the antiquity of the points, has this observation; "The Masoretic notes about words irregularly pointed, and the numbers of them, necessarily suppose that pointing was made long before."

Have there Masoretes employed their time and study, in counting the verses and letters of the Bible, and how many verses and letters there are in such a book; and where exactly is the middle of it; where a word is deficient or lacks a letter; or where it is full and has them all; or where one is redundant and has too many; where one letter is larger and another lesser than usual, and another suspended; suppose now this is all trifling, and of no manner of importance, yet who or what are injured by it? the mispending of their time in such trifles, is a loss not to others, but to themselves; and, as a learned man remarks, "how trifling soever this scrupulous exactness of the Masoretes (with respect to the letters in the Hebrew text) may appear, yet it suggests to us one observation, that the Jews were religiously careful to preserve the true literal text of scripture; and consequently, not- withstanding their enmity and obstinate aversion to christianity, they are not to be charged with this additional crime of having corrupted the Bible:" and after all, have not the Christians had their Masoretes also, who, with like diligence and faithfulness, have numbered all the verses, both of the Greek version of the Old Testament and of the books of the New? and have they been blamed for it? Jerom numbered the verses of the book of Proverbs, and says they were 915, exactly as the Masorah. Some words, through length of time, became obscene and offensive to chaste ears, at least were thought so; hence the Masoretes placed other words in the margin, which; perhaps, is the boldest thing they ever did, and of which the Karaite Jews complain; but then they never attempted to remove the other words from the text, and put in theirs in their room; they only placed them where they did, that, when the passages were read in public, or in families, the reader might be supplied with words that signified the same, only more pure and chaste, and less offensive; at least which were thought so; and which were left to their own option to read them or not. The passages are Deuteronomy 28:27, 30, 1 Samuel 5:6, 9, Isaiah 13:16, Zechariah 14:2, 2 Kings 6:25, 10:27 and 18:27, Isaiah 36:12, and it would not be improper, if, in the margin of our Bibles over-against the last, and others that have the same word, another English word or words were put to be read less offensive. And, by the way, from the change of words proposed in those passages, may be drawn an argument in favor of the antiquity of the Masoretes. For this part of their work must be done, whilst the Hebrew language was a living language, when only the difference of words offensive or not offensive to the ear could be discerned, and a change of them necessary: and certain it is, these notes were made before the Talmud, for mention is made of them in it: yea, these variations are followed by the ancient Targums, by Onkelos, and the Jerusalem on Deuteronomy 28:27, 30, and not only by Pseudo- Jonathan on 1 Samuel 5:6, 9, 2 Kings 6:25, 10:27 and 18:27, but by the true Jonathan on Isaiah 13:16 and 36:12 and Zechariah 14:2, who and Onkelos are supposed to live in the first century. As for the word Sebirim, sometimes used by the Masoretes in their notes; this only respects the conjectures of some persons, who thought a word should be otherwise read or pointed; but it is what the Masoretes object to, and say of such persons, that they are mistaken: and this they observe, that no one may presume to make any alteration upon such conjectures: and are they to be blamed for this? and, besides these things, what have they done, except transmitting, from age to age, the marginal or various readings, which had been observed by collating copies, or which arose from their own observations, by comparing different copies that lay before them; and from delivering them down to posterity, they obtained the name of Masoretes; and can this be thought to be culpable in them? they left the text as they found it; nor did they offer of themselves to insert a various reading, different from the commonly received copy, but placed such readings in the margin, that others might make what use of them they pleased; or rather they took this method, to prevent the insertion of them into the text, suggesting, that so they found them, and there it was proper to continue them: and is a Bible with such readings the worse for them? is a Greek Testament to be dis-esteemed, for having the various readings in it collected from different copies? or are our English Bibles with the marginal readings in them, placed by the translators themselves, with references to other scriptures, the less valuable on that account? nay, are they not the more valued for them? and it may be observed, that these Keries or marginal readings of the Hebrew text, are followed in many places, by some of the belt translators of the Bible, both ancient and modern. Aquila and Symmachus, the best of the ancient Greek interpreters, almost always follow them. Jerom had knowledge of them, and testifies to Aquila's following them, in a particular instance. His words are, f27 "Asseremoth in Jeremiah ( 31:40.) which, in a Hebrew copy it is writ ten Sedemoth, which Aquila interprets suburbana. " And which reading is preferred by Jerom, as is the marginal reading of 5 :38. And if he was the author of the Vulgate Latin version, that agrees with the marginal readings of the Masoretes in several places; see Joshua 3:16 and 15:47. 2 Samuel 8:3, 2 Kings 19:31, all which show the antiquity of these readings. So modern interpreters, Junius and Tremellius, our own translators, and the Dutch, often follow them, as do various interpreters, both Papists and Protestants. Nay, some of these readings and notes are confirmed by the inspired writers of the New Testament. Thus, for instance, in Psalm 16:10 the word rendered holy one, is written with a yod, as if it was plural; but the Masoretic note on it is, that the yod is redundant, and so the word is to be considered as of the singular number; and this is confirmed by two inspired writers, the apostles Peter and Paul, Acts 2:27 and 13:35. Again, in Proverbs 3:34. the Cetib or textual writing is, µyyn[l the poor; but the Keri or marginal reading µywn[l the humble or lowly , which is followed by our translators of the text, and is confirmed by two apostles, James and Peter, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5. And what have the Masoretes done in this respect, but what the learned Dr. Kennicott is now doing, or getting done in the several libraries in Europe; that is, collating the several copies, and collecting from them the various readings; and which, if I understand his design aright, is not to form, upon his own judgment, a new copy of the Hebrew text; but to do with the present copy in common use, what others have done with the New Testament; let it stand as it is, with the various readings thrown into the margin as they may be collected, and leave them to everyone's judgement, with some critical rules to form it, to make use of them as they please: and when this learned gentleman has finished his large Masoretic work, he will be the greatest Masorete that ever any age produced; since not only eight hundred and forty-eight various readings, as Elias has reckoned those of the Masoretes to be, but as many thousands, and more will now appear. I say not this, to depreciate his laborious undertaking, far be it from me; he has my good wishes for the finishing of it, and what little assistance otherwise I can give him in it. For I am not so great an enthusiast, for the integrity of the present printed Hebrew copy, as to imagine, that it is entirely clear of the mistakes of transcribers in all places: to imagine this, is to suppose a miraculous interposition of Divine Providence attending the copiers of it, and that constant and universal; and if but one copier was under such an influence, it would be very extraordinary indeed, if his copy should be lighted on at the first printing of the Hebrew Bible; and besides the first Hebrew Bible that was printed, was not printed from one copy, but from various copies collated; nor is there more reason, to believe, that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, which is more ancient, should be preserved from the escapes of librarians, than the Greek of the New Testament, which it is too notorious are many: nor is suffering such escapes any contradiction to the Promise and Providence of God, respecting the preservation of the Sacred Writings, since all of any moment is preserved in the several copies; so that what is omitted, or stands wrong in one copy, may be supplied and set right by another, which is a sufficient vindication of Divine Providence; and this may serve to excite the diligence and industry of learned men, in collating the several copies for such a purpose; and besides, the Providence of God remarkably appears, in that the escapes suffered to be made do not affect any doctrine of faith, or any moral practice, as has been observed and owned by many: and after all, if from the present collation of manuscripts, there should be published, what may be thought a more correct and perfect copy of the Hebrew text, we shall be beholden to the Jews for it, against whom the clamor rises so high: for by whom were the manuscripts written, now collating, but by Jews? for the truth of this, I appeal to the learned collator himself; and who, if I mistake not, in his printed Dissertations always represents the several Hebrew copies, whether more or less perfect, as the work of Jewish transcribers; and indeed the thing speaks for itself: for from the times of Jerom to the age of printing, there were scarce any, if any at all among Christians, capable of transcribing an Hebrew copy; that interval was a time of barbarous ignorance, as with respect to arts and sciences, so with respect to languages, especially the Hebrew. To know a little Greek, in those barbarous times, was enough to make a man suspected of heresy; and to study Hebrew, was almost sufficient to proclaim him an heretic at once: the study of which lay much neglected, until it was revived by Reuchlin and others, a little before, and about the time of the Reformation.

There might, in the above space of time, rise up now and then one, who had some knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, as Raymund in the thirteenth century, the author of Pugio Fidei; and friar Bacon, who wrote an Hebrew grammar in the latter end of the fame century, and which perhaps was the first, at least one of the first Hebrew grammars written by a Christian; though since, we have had a multitude of them: for almost every smatterer in the Hebrew language thinks himself qualified to write a grammar of it.

However, there is no reason to believe, as I can understand, that any of our Hebrew manuscripts were written by Christians, but all by Jews, I mean such as were written before the age of printing: for what have been written since, can be of no account.

IOBSERVE there is much talk about the Masoretic Bible, and about Masaretic authority. As to the Masoretic Bible, I could never learn there ever was such an one, either in manuscript, or in print, that could with any propriety be so called. Is a Bible with points to be called Masoretic? it must be with great impropriety, since the Masoretes, as has been observed, were not the authors of pointing: are any called so, because they have various readings, and other notes in the margin? as well may a Greek Testament, with various readings and notes in the margin have such a name. Let it be shown, if it can, that there ever was in manuscript, or in print, a copy of the Hebrew text, in all things conformable to the Masoretic notes and readings in the margin, or in which these are inserted in the body of the text, call them corrections, emendations, various readings, or what you please; but if these cannot be shown, then whatsoever Bible, that does not conform in the text to the Masorah in the margin, with much greater propriety may be called Anti-masoretic than Masoretic. As to authority, the Masoretes never claimed any; their Keri is no command to read so or so, nor even a direction how to read, and much less a correction of the text, as if it was faulty; it is only a suggestion, that so it is read in some copies; for the word for which q stands in the margin of some Bibles, is not the imperative yriq] Kere read, but is yriq] ; and is either the same with yWrq; something read, or with h;yirq] a reading, i.e. a various reading. And if the Masoretes ever pretended to any authority, as they have not, it is not regarded; for notwithstanding their antiquity, their readings, and what is agreeable to their notes and observations, are not admitted into the text, but are obliged to keep their place in the margin; and where then is their authority? thus, for instance, in defiance of Masoretic authority, as it is called, and notwithstanding the Masoretic note in the margin, the second yod is continued in d;yd]ysije] Psalm 16:10, and in defiance of the punctuation of the word, which is different from all other places, where the word is manifestly plural, as in Psalm 52:9, 79:2, <19D209> 132:9 and <19E510> 145:10. 2 Chronicles 6:41, in all which places Segol is put under Daleth; but here Sheva, as it is in other words, in which the yod is redundant also, and the word to be read singular, as Debareca, 1 Kings 8:26 and 18:36. Dameca, 2 Samuel 1:16. Yadeca, 1 Kings 22:34, Proverbs 3:27. Abdeca, 1 Kings 1:27. Ragleca, <210501>Ecclesiastes 5:1, with others: and in defiance of the Talmud also. There are but two places I have met with in the Talmud, where the text is quoted; and in both of them the word is without the yod; so that if these, especially the first, had any authority, the yod would not continue in that word.

THE different schemes men have formed, for reading Hebrew without the ancient points, show the necessity of them, and the puzzle they are at without them; but what need men rack their brains to find out a scheme of reading that language, when there is one so suitable, ready at hand for them, consisting of vowel-points, which for their figure and position cannot be equaled by any; which are so contrived, that they take up scarce any, or very little more room, than the words do without them; which neither increase the number of letters in a word, nor make it longer, nor give it any unsightly appearance? whereas, for instance, Masolef's s cheme, besides the augmentation of letters, makes the word look very awkward: and if it was thought the present vowel-points were too numerous, and too great an incumbrance to words, one would think, men might content themselves with reducing their number, and not throw them all away: but the great offense taken at them is, that they tie down to a certain determinate sense of the word, and that they cannot bear, but choose to be at liberty to fix what sense upon it they please.

GREAT complaint is made of the ignorance of the Masoretes in pointing; and an instance is given of it, in their pointing the word Cyrus, as to be read Coresh or Choresh, though indeed they had no hand in it; but admitting they had, and whoever had, there does not appear to be any just blame for it. It is true, it may be thought so, if the Greek pronunciation of the word must be the rule of punctuation: but the original name is not Greek, but Persic; and which, in that language, signifies the sun. So Ctesias and Plutarch say: whether Cyrus had his name from the fun being seen at his feet, while sleeping, which he three times endeavored to catch with his hands, but it slipped from him; and which, according to the Magi, portended a reign of thirty years, is not certain: now the word for the fun, in the Persic language, is Chor or Cor, the fame with Or, Job 31:26, and it is now called Corshad: hence, the god of the Persians is called Oromazes, and sometimes Oromasdes, Hormusd, and Ormusd; this shows the propriety of the first point put to the word, a Cholem and not a Shurek; and it may be observed, there is a similar word used for the sun in other eastern languages, and is pronounced Cheres, Job 9:6. to which may be added, that the oriental versions, both Syriac and Arabic, read the word for Cyrus in all places in the Bible with o, e, and Shin, according to the Bible-pronunciation. It was usual with the Persians, to give men names taken from the sun, as Carshena, Esth. 1:14 and Orsines in Curtius: as for the Greek pronunciation of the word, it is not unusual with the Greeks to pronounce a Cholem by an Ypsilon, as Tzor, Lod, Beerot, by Trus, Lydda, Berytus. In like manner may the punctuation of Darius be vindicated, which is Darjavesch, Daniel 5:31, in much agreement with which, this name is Dareiaiov Dareiaios with Ctesias , f39 and is a word consisting of four parts, and signifies a great, vast, vehement fire; and Esch , fire, is well known to be the deity of the Persians, which was taken into the names of their kings and great personages, as was usual in the eastern nations. So Vasthi, the wife of Abasuerus, or Va-eshti, a great fire, Esth . 1:9. Zeresh , or Zehar-esh, the wife of Haman, ch. 5:10. the brightness of fire; and it appears in Astyages, a king of the Medes.

Strabo s ays, some people called Darius, Darieces. Casaubon thinks, that Strabo wrote Dariaouhv , Dariaoues, which is near the Hebrew punctuation.

IHAVE sent the following Dissertation into the world, not to revive the controversy about the things treated on in it, nor with any expectation of putting an end to it; no doubt, but some will be nibbling at it: and though I may be very unfit to engage further in this controversy, through weight of years upon me, and through the duties of my office, and other work upon my hands, some third person may perhaps arise, to defend what may be thought defensible in it. Should any truly learned gentleman do me the honor, to animadvert upon what I have written, I am sure of being treated with candor and decency; but should I be attacked by sciolists, I expect nothing but petulance, supercilious airs, silly sneers and opprobrious language; and who will be righteously treated with neglect and contempt.

To conclude; if what I have written should merit the attention of men of learning, and cause them to think again, though ever so little; and be a means of directing such, who are inquiring after these things; and of engaging such who may hereafter write on these subjects, to think more closely, to write with more care, caution and candor, and with less virulence, haughtiness and arrogance, than have appeared in some writings of late upon them, my end will be in a great measure answered.

CHAPTER 1.

OF THE ANTIQUITY OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE.

ACCORDING to the Targum of Onkelos, on Genesis 2:7, when God breathed into man the breath of life, that became in man allmmjwr a speaking spirit, or soul; or, as Jonathan paraphrases it, the soul in the body of man became a speaking spirit; that is, man was endued with a natural faculty of speech; so that he may be defined as well ab oratione, a speaking animal, as a ratione, a reasonable one; for speech is proper and peculiar to men: when it is said, man is endued, as all men are, with a natural faculty of speaking, it is not to be understood, as if he was endued with a faculty of speaking some particular language; but with a power and capacity of speaking any language he hears, or is taught; I say hears, because unless a man has the sense of hearing, he cannot express any articulate founds, or words: hence such persons as are totally deaf from their birth, are always dumb, and can never speak any language. Adam first heard the LORD GOD speaking, before he uttered a word himself, as it seems from the sacred history. The language Adam spake, and which, perhaps, he received not the whole instantaneously, but gradually; in which he improved, as circumstances, and the necessity of things required, and which was continued in his posterity: this very probably is that which remained to the confusion of the tongues at Babel, and the dispersion of the people from thence. But of this more hereafter.

SOME have fancied, that if children, as soon as born, were brought up in a solitary place, where they could not hear any language spoken, that at the usual time children begin to speak, they would speak the first and primitive language that was spoken in the world. Psammitichus, king of Egypt, made trial of this by putting two children, newly born, under the care of a shepherd; charging him, that not a word should be uttered in their presence; and that they should be brought up in a cottage by themselves; and that goats should be had to them at proper times to suckle them; and commanded him to observe the first word spoken by them, when they left off their inarticulate sounds. Accordingly, at two years end, the shepherd opening the door of the cottage, both the children with their hands stretched out cried bec, bec. This he took no notice of at first, but it being frequently repeated, he told his lord of it, who ordered the children to be brought to him; and when Psammitichus heard them pronounce the word, he inquired what people used it, and upon enquiry found that the Phrygians called bread by that name; upon this it was allowed that the Phrygians were a more ancient people than the Egyptians, between whom there had been a long contest about antiquity. This is the account given by Herodotus; but the Scholiast of Aristophanes says, that it was at three year's end the king ordered a man to go in silently to them, when he heard them pronounce the above word. And so Suidas relates, that at the same term of time, the king ordered one of his friends to go in silently, who heard and reported the same; and all of them observe, that the story is differently related by others; as that the children were delivered to a nurse or nurses, who had their tongues cut out, that they might not speak before them; and so lays Tertullian : yet they all agree in the word spoken by the children. But, as Suidas observes, if the former account is rue, as it seems most probable, that they were nourished by goats, and not women; it is no wonder, that often hearing the bleating of the goats, be-ec, be-ec, they should imitate the sound, and say after them bec, which in the Phrygian language signified bread; and so food is expressed in Hebrew by a word of a similar sound gb beg, Ezekiel 25:7, Daniel 1:8, and 11:26, and might as well be urged in favor of the antiquity of that language; but this proves nothing.

IT may seem needless to inquire what was the first language that was spoken, and indeed it must be so, if what some say is true, that it is not now in being, but was blended with other languages, and lost in the confusion at Babel; and also if the Oriental languages, the Hebrew, Samaritan, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiapic, are but one language; which is more probable, as Ravius thinks, and so may go under the general name of the Eastern language; and it must be acknowledged there is a very great similarity between them, as not only appears from Ravius, but from the Pentaglot Lexicon of Schindler, and especially from the Harmonic Grammars and Lexicons of Hottinger and Castell; and yet I cannot but be of opinion, that the Hebrew language stands distinguished by its simplicity and dignity. The celebrated Albert Schultens reckons the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic languages, as sister-dialects of the primaeval language; which I am content they should be accounted, allowing the Hebrew to be the pure dialect, which the others are a deviation from, and not so pure: though I should rather choose to call them daughters, than sisters of the Hebrew tongue; since, as Jerom says, the Hebrew tongue is the mother of all languages, at least of the oriental ones.

And these daughters are very helpful and assisting to her their mother in her declining state, and now reduced as to purity to the narrow limits of the sacred scriptures; for I cannot prevail upon myself to agree that she should be stripped of her maternal title, dignity, and honor; since she has the best claim to be the primitive language, as will be seen hereafter. Dr. Hunt, f50 though he is of the same mind with Schultens, that the above languages are sisters, having the same parent, the Eastern language, yet seems to allow the Hebrew to be the elder sister. And Schultens himself asserts, that the primeval language, which was from the beginning of the world spoken by our first parents, and the antediluvian patriarchs, and after the flood to the dispersion, is the same which was afterwards called Hebrew, from Heber; from whom it passed through Peleg and Abraham to the nation of the Hebrews, and so the mother-language; but how it could be both mother and sister, is not easy to say.

THAT there was but one language spoken by men, from Adam to the flood in the times of Noah, and from thence to the confusion and dispersion at Babel, seems manifest from <011101>Genesis 11:1. and the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech; and which is confirmed by the testimonies of several heathen writers, as by Sibylla in Josephus, by Abydenus, and others; and which continued in that interval without any, or little variation: the longevity of the patriarchs much contributed to this, for Adam himself lived to the 10th century, and the flood was in the 17th. Methuselah, who died a little before the flood, lived upwards of two hundred years in the days of Adam, and 600 years cotemporary with Noah, and who doubtless spoke the same language that Adam did; yea Lamech, the father of Noah, was born 50 years or more before the death of Adam; so that the language of Adam to the days of Noah is easily accounted for as the same: if any variation, it must be in the offspring of those of the patriarchs who removed from them, and settled in different parts of the world, but of this there is no proof; the separation of Cain and his posterity on account of religion, does not appear to have produced any alteration in language; but the same language was spoken by one as another, as is evident by the names of persons in the line of Cain, and of places inhabited by them to the time of the flood; when, no doubt, the same language was spoken by Noah, from whom his sons received it, and was continued unto the dispersion, which before that was but one; and it is the opinion of the Persian priests or Magi, that the time will come when the earth will be of one language again; and if so, it is probable it will be the primitive one, but what that was, is the thing to be inquired into. The Targums of Jonathan and Onkelos on the place, add, by way of explanation, "and they spoke in the holy tongue, in which the world was created at the beginning," meaning the Hebrew language, usually called the holy tongue; and this is the sense of Jarchi, Aben Ezra, and the Jewish writers in general, and of many Christians. But most nations have put in a claim for the superior antiquity of their nation and language, the Europeans not excepted. Goropius Becanus pleaded for the Teutonic language, or that which is spoken in lower Germany and Brabant, to be the original one, and attempted to derive the Hebrew from it; but it has been thought he was not serious in it, only did it to show his acumen, and the luxuriancy of his fancy and imagination; the eastern nations have a much better pretext to antiquity, and most, if not all of them, have put in their claim for it. There was a long contest between the Egyptians and Phrygians about this matter, as before observed. The Armenians have urged in their favor, that the ark rested on one of the mountains in their country, where Noah and his posterity continued some time, and left their language there. The Arabs pretend, that their language was spoken by Adam before his fall, and then changed into Syriac, and was restored upon his repentance, but again degenerated, and was in danger of being lost, but was preferred by the elder Jorham, who escaped with Noah in the ark, and propagated it among his posterity. The Chinese make great pretensions to the primitive language, and many things are urged in their favor, as the antiquity of their nation, their early acquaintance with arts and sciences, the singularity, simplicity, and modesty of their tongue. A countryman of ours, in the last century, published a treatise, called "An historical essay, endeavoring a probability that the language of China is the primitive language, by J. Webb, Esq; London, 1669, 8vo."

But as when many candidates put up for a place, they are generally reduced to a few, and, if possible to two; the same method must be taken here; for the contest lies between the Syriac or Chaldee, and the Hebrew.

The Chaldee or Syriac language has its patrons for the antiquity of it; not only Theodoret, who was by birth a Syrian, and Amyra the Maronite, who are not to be wondered at, and others who have made it their favorite study; but even the Arabic writers, the more judicious of them, give it not only the preference to their own language in point of antiquity, but even make it as early as Adam. Elmacinus s ays, there are historians (Arabic ones) who affirm, that Adam and his posterity spoke the Syriac language until the confusion of tongues; and so Abulpharagius s ays, f57 "of our doctors, Basilius and Ephraim assert, that unto Eber the language of men was one, and that that was Syriac, and in which God spoke to Adam ;" and it must be allowed, that there are many things plausibly said in favor of this language being primitive: it must be owned that the Chaldean nation was a very ancient one, Jen. 5:15, and that the Syriac language was spoken very early, as by Laban; but not earlier than the Hebrew, which was spoken at the same time by Jacob; the one called the heap of stones which was a witness between them Jegar-Sahadutha in the Syro-Chaldean language, and the other Galeed in Hebrew, which both signify the same thing: what is commonly urged is as follows: 1. THAT the names of a man and woman are as much alike, if not more so, in the Chaldee or Syriac language, as in the Hebrew; a man is called Gabra and a woman Gabretha, which is equally as near as Ish and Ishah produced to prove the antiquity of the Hebrew, Genesis 2:23. But neither in the Chaldee of Onkelos, nor in the Syriac version of that place, is it Gabretha, but Ittetha in the one, and Antetha in the other. Theodoret f58 instances in the names Adam, Cain, Abel, Noah, as proper to the Syriac language; but the de rivation of them from the Hebrew tongue is more clear and manifest. 2. THAT it is rather agreeable to truth, that the primaeval and common language before the confusion should remain in the country where the tower was built and the confusion made, which was in Chaldea, and therefore the Chaldee language, must be that language; but rather the contrary seems more natural, that the language, confounded and corrupted, should continue in the place where the confusion was made, and that those possessed of the pure and primitive language should depart from thence, as in fact they afterwards did. 3. IT is observed, that both Eber and Abraham were originally Chaldeans, and were brought up in Chaldea, and so must speak the language of that country, which therefore must be prior to the Hebrew; but it should be considered, that not only Eber but Abraham lived before the confusion and dispersion; for if the confusion was in the latter end of Peleg's days, Abraham, according to the Jewish chronology, must be years of age, and consequently possessed of the pure and primitive language, be it what it may; and since it does not appear that either he or any of his posterity, as Isaac and Jacob, used the Chaldee language, but the Hebrew only, it seems to follow, that not the Chaldee, but the Hebrew, must be the language spoken by him, and so the primitive one. 4. IT is said, the Hebrews s prung from the Chaldeans, Judith 5:5, and so their language must be later than theirs; this is founded on Abraham's being of Ur of the Chaldees, from whence he came; but it does not follow, that because he was born and lived in that country before the confusion of Babel, that therefore he spoke the language used in that country afterwards, since he was soon called out of it; and it appears that he spoke not the Chaldee or Syriac language, but the Hebrew, as before observed. 5. IT is urged, as highly probable, that the language the second Adam spake, the first Adam did; now Christ and his Apostles, and the people of the Jews in their times, spoke in the Syriac language, as appears from Matthew 27:46, Mark 5:41, and 7:34, but according to some learned men, as Masius, and Fabricius Boderianus, this was not the ancient language of the Syrians and Chaldeans, but a new language, which had its first rise in the Babylonish captivity, and was a mixture of Chaldee and Hebrew; though rather the mixture began in the times of the Seleucidae, the Syrian kings, who entered into and distressed Judea; and therefore no argument can be taken from it in favor of the Syriac being the primitive language. I proceed now to propose the arguments that are, or may be used in favor of the Hebrew language being the primitive one; and the First, may be taken from the alphabet of the tongue itself, which appears to be the first alphabet of all the eastern languages. The Chaldee or Syriac, Phoenician or Samaritan, have their alphabets manifestly from it; the names, the number, and order of their letters, and even the form and ducts of them seem to be taken from thence, and to be corrupt deviations from it; and the Arabic language, though the order of its alphabet is somewhat disturbed, yet the names of most of the letters are plainly from the Hebrew; and so indeed is the greater part of the names of letters in the Greek alphabet, from whence the Romans have taken theirs, and other European nations. Hermannus Hugo observes, that it is agreed among all, that from the names of the Hebrew characters, the letters of all nations have their names; now that language, whole alphabet appears to be the first, and to give rise to the alphabets of other tongues, bids fairest to be the first and primitive language: let it be observed that the Hebrew alphabet, as it now is, is exactly the same as it was in the days of David and Solomon, so early it can be traced; for it is to be seen in the 119th Psalm, and in others, and in the last chapter of the book of Proverbs, as well as in the book of Lamentations, written before or at the beginning of the Babylonish captivity.

Secondly, Another argument for the antiquity of the Hebrew language, may be formed from the perfection and purity of it. Abraham de Balmis f68 s ays of it, that "it is perfect in its letters and in its points. Our language, says he, is the most perfect language, and in its writing the most perfect of all writings of all languages; there is nothing wanting, and there is nothing redundant in it, according to the laws and rules of things perfect and compleat."

It consists of words which most fully and effectually express the nature of the things signified by them; its roots, which are of a certain number, are, for the most part, of three letters only, and it has no exotic or strange words used in it. Whoever compares it with the Syriac or Chaldee, will easily perceive the difference as to the purity of them, and that the Chaldee is derived from the Hebrew, and is later than that; for as Scaliger long ago observed dlm Melech must be before aklm Malca, the latter being derived from the former; and the same may be observed in a multitude of other instances: now that which is perfect, pure, and underived, must be before that which is imperfect, corrupt, and derived; or, as the philosopher expresses it, that which is vicious and corrupt must be later than that which is incorrupt.

Thirdly, The Paronomasia which Adam used when he called his wise woman, may be thought to be a good proof of the antiquity of the Hebrew language; since it will agree with that language only, she shall be called Ishah, woman, because she was taken, meish, out of man, Genesis 2:23, which paronomasia does not appear neither in the Syriac version, nor in the Chaldee paraphrases of Onkelos and Jonathan, in which though Gabra is used of a man, yet never Gabretha of a woman, not even in places where men and women are spoken of together; see the Syriac version and Chaldee paraphrase of Exodus 35:22, Deuteronomy 2:34, and many other places; and the reason for it is plain, the word is expressive of power and might, and so not so proper to be used of the weaker sex. The Syriac or Chaldee language will not admit of such an allusion as is in the text; for on the one hand, as Gabra is used for a man, and not Gabretha for a woman, so on the other hand, Itta, Ittetha, and Intetha or Antetha, are used for a woman, but never Itt for a man. Now as we prove that the additions to the book of Daniel were written in Greek, from the paronomasia in ch. 13:55, 59, so this seems to prove that the language Adam spoke in to his wife must be the Hebrew language, and consequently is the primitive one. f71 Fourthly, The names of persons and places before the confusion at Babel, are in the Hebrew language, and are plainly derived from words in it; as Adam from hm da Adamah, earth, out of which he was formed, as is generally thought. Eve, from hyj Chayah, to live, because the mother of all living; Cain from hnq get, obtain, possess, being gotten from the Lord; Abel, from lbh Hebel, vanity, as his life was; and Seth, from tç Sheth, put, appointed, because put, set, or appointed another feed in the room of Abel: and so all the names of the Antediluvian patriarchs down to Noah and his sons, and their names also, with all those before the confusion and dispersion at Babel; and likewise the names of places, as of the garden of Eden, from xz[ delight, pleasure, it being a very pleasant place; and the land of Nod from dwn to wander about; Cain being an exile and wanderer in it: now these being the names of persons and places before the confusion of tongues, clearly show what language was spoken before that time, namely the Hebrew, which therefore seems to be the primitive one.

Fifthly, It is notorious that the law and the prophets, or the books of the old testament, were written in the Hebrew tongue. The law was written in it on two tables of stone by the finger of God himself, and the sacred books were written in the same language, under divine inspiration. Now it is reasonable to conclude, that the same language God wrote and inspired the prophets to write in, he himself spoke in to Adam, and inspired him with it, or however gave him a faculty of speaking it, and which he did speak, and therefore may be concluded to be the first and primitive tongue.

IT now remains only to be inquired into, why this language is called Hebrew. It is supposed by some to have its name from Eber, the father of Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided, and from whom the Hebrews s prung and have their name; and which opinion has been most generally received. Others think it has its name from rb[ Abar, to pass over, from Abraham's passing over the river Euphrates into the land of Canaan; this notion Aben Ezra makes mention of on Exodus 21:2, and has been espoused by Theodoret among the ancients, and indeed according to Origen the word Hebrew s ignifies passer over, and so Jerom; and by Scaliger and Arias Montanus among the moderns, in which they have been followed by many. The matter is not of very great consequence, but I must confess I am most inclined to the former; for as Austin observes, before the confusion language was one, and common to all, and needed no name to distinguish it; it was enough to call it the speech of man, or the human language; but when there was a confusion of tongues, and so more than one, it became necessary to distinguish them by names; and what name more proper for the first language than that of Hebrew, from Eber, the last man in whose days it was alone and common to all? for in his son's days the earth was divided into different nations, speaking different languages. Moreover, Shem is said to be the Father of all the children of Eber, Genesis 4:21, or as Jonathan paraphrases it, of all the children of the Hebrews, or of Hebrew children: respect is had, as the learned Rivet f79 observes, to the blessing of Shem, in opposition to the curse of Ham, Genesis 9:25, 26. Now as Canaan s prung from Ham, and was the father of the Canaanites, so Eber s prung from Shem and was the father of the Hebrews; and as afterwards they were called the children of Israel, and Israelites from Israel, and the children of Judah and Jews from Judah; so the children of Eber or Hebrews from him, and with equal propriety the language they spoke may be called Hebrew from him; and their country likewise, as in Genesis 40:15, for it does not seem probable that the land of Canaan s hould be called the land of the Hebrews, as it is there, so early as in the youth of Joseph, from a single family being passengers, travelers, and strangers in it, which are characters not very respectful and honorable, nor distinguishing; but rather from Eber, who, and his immediate offspring, might inhabit it, it being that part assigned and divided to them at the division of the earth, Deuteronomy 32:8, out of which they might be driven by the Canaanites, s ee Genesis 13:7 and <011401> 14:1, 4, therefore it was an act of justice to dispossess them and replace the children of Eber in it: and this may also serve to account for the names of places in pure Hebrew in old Canaan, by which they were called, when Joshua made a conquest of it, as well as in the time of Abraham, since it was the land of Eber before it was the land of Canaan; if Melchizedeck was Shem, as the Jews in general believe, he was king of a city in it, and Eber his first born had a right unto it, claimed by Chedarlaomer, a descendant of his, who attempted the rescue of it from the Canaanites, who had usurped a power over it, at least over some part of it; and it is easy to observe that in the prophecy of Balaam, Numbers 24:24, as the Assyrians are called Ashur, from their original progenitor, so the Hebrews have the name of Eber from him; and so the word Eber there is rendered Hebrews by the Septuagint and other translators; and as they, so their language, may be called from him. As to what is objected, that Eber and Abraham were Chaldeans, and spoke the Chaldee language, this has been replied to already; and whereas it is observed, that from the time of Eber to Abraham, no one is ever called an Hebrew from him; it is not to be wondered at, since Eber lived to the time of Abraham, and even to the time of Jacob, according to both the Jewish and Scripture-chronology.

THE foundation of the other opinion, that the Hebrews and their language have their name from Abraham's passing over the Euphrates to the land of Canaan, is the Septuagint version of Genesis 14:13, which instead of Abraham the Hebrew, reads tw perath the transitor or passer over; though perhaps no more is meant by that version, than that he was, as Juvenal expresses it, natus ad Euphratem, born near the river Perat, for that is its name in Hebrew; but whatever may be said for Abraham's being called an Hebrew from such a circumstance, it can scarcely be thought that a whole nation should be denominated from such an action of a remote ancestor, when they themselves passed not over the same river; besides there were multitudes who passed over the Euphrates besides Abraham, who yet never were so called; as Canaan and his posterity must pass over it, when they removed from Shinar to the land afterwards called by their name; and indeed Erpenius is of opinion that the Canaanites were first called Hebrews, or passers over, by the Chaldeans, because they passed over the river Jordan into the country which lay between that and the Mediterranean s ea, afterwards called from them the land of Canaan; and that Abraham had not his name from his passage into it, but from his dwelling there, and learning their language; hence his posterity were called Hebrews, and the Hebrew language the language of Canaan, Isaiah 19:18, and the same writer thinks, that if the Hebrews were only those of the family of Jacob, they would not have been so well known to the Egyptians in the time of Joseph as they were: but to all this it may be replied, that the Canaanites were ever called Hebrews, does not appear from any writers, sacred or profane; nor is it probable that the pure and primitive language, that is the Hebrew, as has been shown, should be left with and continued in the race of Canaan; and kill more improbable, that Abraham should learn it of them, who was possessed of the first and primitive language before the confusion of tongues, as has been observed, and before he came into the land of Canaan; besides he seems to be called Abraham the Hebrew, Genesis 14:13, to distinguish him from Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, who were Canaanites, confederates with him; nor is the Hebrew language called the language of Canaan, because first spoken by the Canaanites, but because the people of Israel spoke it, who for a long time had inhabited the land which bore that name; nor need it seem strange, that the name of Hebrew should be so well known in Potiphar's family, and to the Egyptians in Joseph's time, when he himself told them, no doubt, that he was an Hebrew, as he told the chief butler, Genesis 39:17 and 41:12, and especially if what has been before observed concerning the land of the Hebrews, can be established, Genesis 40:15, as being inhabited by Eber and his sons, before the Canaanites possessed it.

THERE are other etymologies of the name of the Hebrews and their language, which scarce deserve any notice; as that they have their name from Abraham; so Artapanus, an heathen writer, says the Jews are called Hebrews from Abraham, but there are but few that have embraced this notion; others say, they are so called from Eberhanaar, which signifies beyond or the other side of the river, that is, of the Euphrates, where Abraham and his father Terah dwelt, and from whence Abraham is said to be taken; but there were many besides them, even whole nations who dwelt beyond that river, who were never called Hebrews, nor can any good reason be given, why these and their posterity and their language should be called Hebrew from thence, the many, both Jews and Christians, have imbibed this notion: Eusebius, though he thinks the Hebrews had their name from Eber, yet as the word signifies a passer over, not from one country to the other, but from the vanity of the things of this present world, to the study