We shall now, as summarily as possible, speak of the Shemitic idioms in their special branches, and endeavour to point out as we proceed whatever is best fit to throw a light on the many questions respecting their comparative age, development, and history, referring always for fuller details and points beyond our present task to the several articles devoted to them individually in the course of this work. The first and to the Biblical stu dent most important of these idioms, is the middle Shemitic, Hebraic, or Hebrew, the language of the Hebrew people during the time of their independ ence in Canaan. The term Hebrew 0-1:3)) itself has been derived by some from Eber, the father of Peleg and Joktan ; by others from the appellative 111,7, scil. e. the other side of the river Euphrates, whence the Abrahamites immigrated into Canaan (LXX. repcirns). This double de rivation is already mentioned in Theodoretus; other derivations are fromys,a., to explain, etc. No less have Iberians, Arabians, and other words of similar sound been pressed into the service. The canonical books of the O. T. do not use that term to designate the language, which they call variously 'pm ntv, language of Canaan, in contradistinction to Egyp tian ; and nrwr Jewish, in contradistinction to Araniaic (or Ashdodian). It first occurs in Eccle siasticus and Josephus, as ippararl, ^yXa Tra raw 'Eppalwv. In the N. T., ggpciicrri, Op:as SoiXecros, means Aramaean, in contradistinction to Greek. Philo, ignorant of the language, calls it -yXwovetv XaMaikbp. When Aramaic had, after the return from the captivity, become the popular tongue, and Hebrew was chiefly confined to temple, syna gogue and academy, it received the name 116 holy language,. or, more accurately, rrz it6 nrnp, language of the sanctuary. One of the many vexed and barren questions connected with it is that regarding its original soil—that is, whether Abraham imported it as his own native tongue into Canaan, or whether, finding it there, he and his descendants merely adopted it. Those who held or hold Hebrew to be, if not the oldest of all languages, the oldest at least of the Shemitic idioms, naturally decide for the former view, since it could not but have remained the traditional in heritage of the chosen race. The defenders of the latter view, on the other hand, point to the circumstance that Abraham came from Mesopo tamia, where Aramaic was the common idiom used —e.g. by Laban, the grandnephew of Abraham (Gen. xxxi. 47), as a translation of Jacob's Hebrew ; further, to its denomination language of Canaan,' the geographical position of which country, be tween the AramRans and the Arabs, would seem exactly to correspond to the linguistical position of their respective tongues. Again, the close resem blance of the Phcenician to the Hebrew, and certain proper names of Canaan, such as p.n. 4:90,1n1mt, and the like, are brought forward in support of this second theory. Yet there is a third—viz. that the idiom itself may first have been fully de veloped by the Abrahamides in Canaan, who may have neither brought it nor found it there, but from a fusion of their own original Aramaic' and the Canaanitish language spoken in their new homes produced it and developed it.
Intimately connected with this question is the more general one as to the age of this language itself. That it was the aboriginal tongue from which all others have been derived is, as we hinted before, an opinion not in accordance with the uncon tested results of modern philology. The argument of the etymology of certain proper names in the early documents of Genesis (D1N from riDIN, earth ; rrin from '11, life, etc.), was already disposed of by Grotius, who held that Moses may have trans. latea' them simply into Hebrew r.ccording to the genius of this language, and by Clericus, who pointed out how these names were chiefly appella tive names, to a great extent given after the events had taken place to which they point. Yet it was further argued, many names (from Kain to Le mech principally) allow of no etymology whatso ever, therefore this must be the original tongue of all men. Such most primitive arguments, however, disposed of, we are still left in the ut most uncertainty : and, in the absence of docu ments and testimonies, we must resign ourselves to give up all hopes of ever arriving at more than vague theories on the subject. Much niore to the purpose, however, is the attempt to find out the relative position of Hebrew among its sister idioms. The oldest Shemitic documents that have suivivcd are in Hebrew, and in them we find this language and its structure fully developed ; so fully indeed, that what prog,ress we do perceive in it is a downward progress : the beginning of decay.
It further bears so distinctive a character of high antiquity, originality, simplicity, and purity—the etymology of its grammatical forms is still at times so clearly visible in it and it alone, while it has disap peared in the other dialects—that if not the oldest absolutely, it is certainly the one Shemitic tongue which seems to come nearest to the one primitive type of the Shemitic idionis now generally assumed. With regard to its lexical and grammatical positior, it occupies that mean between the Aramaic as the poorest, and the Arabic as the richest. Its prin cipal wealth and strength, however, lies in its re ligious and ethical element. Whatever may have been lost of its documents and the words which they contained, that which remains is sufficient to show the peculiar tendency and character of its vocabulary. There are, e.g., 14 different terms for ask, inquire,' 24 for keep the Law,' 9 for trust in God,' etc. Of foreign elements we chiefly discover those original terms for foreign objects, persons, or dignities, introduced from the Egyptian. idiom during the Mosaic period, and from the As syrian, Babylonian, Persian, etc., at later times. Few tmces are found of dialectical differences—al. though there are some of a vulgar idiom an, rin, Manna, etc.)—while on the other hand the differ ence between prosaic and poetical diction is most striking-. Fuller forms in flexions, in suffixes, pecu liar formations of nouns, the use of grand epithets, and above all, rare words (mostly Aramaic), are the distinguishing characteristic of its poetry. It loves to draw for peculiarity of expression both upon the ancient and partly obsolete stock of words, and upon the language of the common people : no less than upon dialects of idiomatic affinity. Other poetical peculiarities are the omission of the relative or the use of the demonstrative in its stead, the omission of the article, and the like.
There is, however insignificant the changes un dergone by the Hebrew and the Shemitic languages in general be, as compared with those of Ind°. Germanic—and the reasons for this stability of the former are founded in their whole character and history—yet a certain change noticeable in tbe Hebrew, as preserved in tbe O. T. Whether this be due to the difference of the ages in which the several books were written, or to peculiarities of the respective writers, as some hold, seems hardly to allow of a doubt. Whatever may be owing to provincialism, or individuality, or even to the more solemn and therefore different style of poetry—and we cannot always distinguish these things as clearly as we could wish—enongh remains to show a gra dual and important difference between the earlier and the later stages of the language in the earlier and later books of the O. T. Certain correspond ing periods—two, three, or more—have accordingly been assumed. Thus some distinguish between the time before and that after the exile ; others between Mosaic, Davidic, Solomonic periods, and the period after the exile. Yet these divisions are of a most precarious nature. It is quite true that certain words and forms which occur in the Penta teuch do not occur again until very late. That again, terms used at first in prose occur afterwards only in poetry, or have completely changed their forms and meanings. Further it is undoubtedly true that during the Davidian time, and that of his son, the influence of the schools founded by Samuel, and the influence of two snch eminent kings and their brilliant literary achievement, together with the flourishing condition of the country itself, could not but make itself felt also in a generally higher and finer cultivation of style, diction, and language, throughout the writings of the period. It must also be allowed that the Assyrian invasion, and all its consequences—principally the spread of Aramman in Palestine—corrupted the purity of the language, blunted its sense of grammatical niceties, and caused those who most desperately clung to the ancient style to introduce, instead of the living elements of former days, dead archaisms. But we doubt whether any genuine division can be insti tuted, as long at least as tbe now prevailing un certainty as to the date of certain parts of the Scrip ture will last—and we fear it will not soon be removed.