The line of investigation to be followed is the same as that applied by M. Pictet to the Indo- European languages, and which employs the assumption (called by M. Lenormant ‘the true principle’) that, where kindred nations which have separated call objects or institutions by the same names, and there are no signs of those names having been borrowed independently, they must have possessed the names and the objects, ete., before they parted. A comparison therefore of the Hebrew and Arabic names for a variety of things should give us something like a correct idea of the state of Arabian society when the Canaanites first migrated northward. The result would seem to be the followiny :—
The nation from which the Canaanitish colonies emanated must before that event have attained as high a level of development as any Oriental State uninfluenced by Europe has reached. Society was already organized on the basis of the family, for the languages have identical names for ‘ father-in- law,’ ‘mother-in-law,’ ‘son-in-law,’ and ‘ daughter- in-law,’ which necessarily imply it ; but the family was polygamic, since the relation of ‘fellow-wife’ is indicated by the same name with the proper phonetic changes. The treble system of naming in use in Arabia would seem to have existed also, since the Canaanites retain all three words for
* The Aramaic of Daniel also has this.
+ The biblical Aramaic as well as that of the papyri shows some traces of these passives. The Hebrew of the OT shows considerable relics of a passive of the first form, which the grammatical tables cannot recognize. The punctuators identi- fied it with Pu'ai, the passive of ii. 2} Is143and Fey Ly 62 are striking cases. <
¢ This conjugation is given in the Assyrian paradigms.
§ Vollers, in his review (7A, 1897) of Noldeke, Zur Grammatik des Kl. Aralischen, thinks that work will tend to modify this view ; but see the author's reply in the same volume.
ee ee πΦΦὋἝὮὉ ὁ π-ΞἝ“ἷἕ ---- τ Ὁ- Ξ-᾿- .55------ε---"»-»
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.
‘naming’ and ‘names,’* but have apparently ceased to distinguish between them accurately ; and the castes of freemen and slaves were already distinct. The life of the people was passed partly in villages, partly in towns, with streets and squares, and defended by walls. ‘The same cereals were cultivated in the fields, many of the same pot-herbs in the gardens, mostly the same fruits in the orchards and plantations, and the same animals domesticated as afterwards in Canaan ; and the chief agricultural processes had already been invented and named. Various trades were exercised in the towns: there were smiths and carpenters who understood the use of the saw, the axe, and the adze; there were money-changers with scales,t and there were money-lenders.{ The last two trades imply some acquaintance with arithmetic, and the Arabs before the Canaanitish migration possessed special names for ‘thousands’ and ‘myriads.’ Money-lending implies the caleu- lation of days, and this is based on astronomical observation, the beginnings of which already ex- isted, for some of the constellations § were already named. Writing already existed,|| and, it would seem, an alphabet,{/ and certain styles of elegant composition were already practised.** Religion had already taken shape: men could distinguish be- tween the sacred and the profane, they had a pilgrimage, and learned various ceremonies, in- cluding, probably, genuflexions and prostrations. The prophetic profession seems to have existed in a variety of forms. Custom had already to some extent become stereotyped in the form of law.
It is probable, therefore, that the Canaanites issued from a country where a classical language was spoken and written. Some tribes may have carried that language with them into their new home; but, in the case of those whom we know best, it would appear to be a vulgar dialect of Arabie which formed the basis of the language. Many curious parallels can be found between the language of the Bible and the dialects of Arabic spoken in Egypt and Syria in the present day.tt While in general simplifying the structure of the
* 732 in Arabic, ‘to address by an indirect name,’ i.e. to call aman by his son’s name, ‘ father of so-and-so,’ instead of by his own. In the Aghd@ni the narrators often point out how the Caliph kannani, ‘called me Abiso-and-so’ todo me honour. In Syriac the word merely means to ‘name’; in Hebrew, Is 454 ‘to call by a family name,’ Job 3221 ‘to flatter.’ It would seem clear that the Arabic practice (extraordinary as it is) lies behind both the Heb. and Syr. usage. The word /akab, in Arabic ‘title,’ serves to give a verb to the Hebrew ov: 337} Wy n)bw 3 * whose names have been mentioned,’ Nu 117, :
ft O:2]ND is a case of popular etymology. The root ]” being lost in Hebrew, the word was popularly derived from ἢ} ‘an ear.’ The Carthaginians have a similar word, Rev. Ass. v. 12.
} The Heb, 722, of which the construction is peculiar, seems evidently connected with nasi’ah, ‘ deferred payment.’
§ See Hommel’s article in the ZDMG, 1892.
1 The word 750 seems to be the Arab. zibr, which occurs in the earliest Arabic known to us. See Muallakah of Labid. The Assyr. satar is used in early Arabic also. The meaning ‘to write’ is lost in Hebrew, but lies behind the sense of "we.