The manifold uses of the Arabic language in Biblical philology (exclusive of the advantages it affords for comparing the Arabic versions) may in part be gathered from the degree of its affinity to the Hebrew ; and, indeed, chiefly to the Hebrew before the exile, after which period the Aramaic is the most fruitful means of illustration (Mahn, Darstellung der Lexicographic, p. 390. But there are some peculiarities in the relative position of the two dialects which considerably enhance the value of the aid to he derived from the Arabic. The Hebrew language of the Old Testament has pre served to us but a small fragment of a literature. In the limited number of its roots (some of which even do not occur in the primary sense), in the rarity of some formations, and in the antique rudi mentary mode in which some of its constructions are denoted, are contained those difficulties which cannot receive any other illustration than that which the sister dialects, and most especially the Arabic, afford. For this purpose, the resemblances between them are as useful as the diversities. The former enable us to feel certain on points which were liable to doubt : they confirm and establish an intelligent conviction that the larger portion of our knowledge of the meaning of words, and of the force of constructions in Hebrew, is on a sure foundation ; because we recognise the same in a kindred form, and in a literature so volumin ous as to afford its frequent opportunities testing our notions by every variety of experience. The diversities, on the other hand (according to a mode of observation very frequent in comparative anatomy), shew us what exists potentially in the rudimentary state, by enabling us to sec how a language of the same genius has, in the further pro gress of its development, felt the necessity of de noting externally those relations of formation and construction which were only dimly perceived in its antique and uncultivated form. Thus, to hdduce a single illustration from the Arabic cases in the noun :—The precise relation of the words mouth and isle, in the common Hebrew phrases, ' I call I my mouth,' and he smote him his life' (Ewald's Hebr. Gram. § 482), is easily intelligible to one
whom Arabic has familiarized with the perpetual use of the so-called accusative to denote the acces sory descriptions of state. Another important ad vantage to be derived from the study of Arabic is the opportunity of seeing the grammar of a Syro Arabian language explained by native scholars. Hebrew grammar has suffered much injury from the mistaken notions of men, who, understanding the sense of the written documents by the aid of the versions, have been exempted from obtaining any independent and inward feeling of the genius of the language, and have therefore not hesitated to ac commodate it to the grammar of our Indo-Germanic idioms. In Arabic, however, we have a language, every branch of the philosophical study of which has been successfully cultivated by the Arabs them selves. Their own lexicographers,, grammarians, and scholiasts (to whom the Jews also are indebted for teaching them the grammatical treatment of Hebrew) have placed the language before its with such elaborate explanation of its entire character, that Arabic is not only by far the most accessible of the Syro-Arabian dialects, but may challenge comparison, as to the possession of these advan tages, with the Greek itself.—J. N.
[Celsius, Histor. lingme Arab., Upsal, 1694 ; Walton, Prolegg. p. 93, vol. i., ed. Dathe, Bib. Palm. p. 633 ; Biblioth. Arab., Halle, 1811 ; IHvernick, General Infra. to the O. T., p. 106 ff. E. T. 1852.—Erpenius, Rudintenta Ling. Arab. ea'. Schultens, Lug. Bat. 1 733 ; De Sacy Grammaire Arabe, Par. 18t° ; Richardson, Arabic Grammar, 1776; Ewald, Gram. Crit. Ling. Arab., 2 vols 1831-33 j Caspari, Gram. Arab., accedit brez. Chrest. Arab. 1848 ; Wright, Arabic Grammar, IS60.—Freytag, Lexicon Arab. lat., 4 vols. 1830 37, of which a compendium by the author was pub lished in one vol. 1837.]