* eg. nbdap Jer 1510 (=mukallili-ni, Schultens); ὙΠῸ Job 45 (=minhu); 152 33ND7n. Apparently, the use of in and tm to form the plural was optional, see Mic 812 quoted in Jer 2018, From Jer 253 and Ezk 14% it might seem that the pre- formative of the 4th and 7th conjugation might be pronounced R&,
Gideon, and several in those of Ehud (Jg 315:39) and Samson (Jg 13-16); perhaps some of those in the last two narratives are not Israelitish at all, but Moabitic and Philistian ; and indeed in Jg 16% the form pnw seems clearly intended to be Philistian, but is certainly not exclusively so. In the parts of the 2nd Bk. of Kings which treat of the northern kingdom, scholars have tried to detect much local phraseology ; and the same has been tried with the prophecies of Hosea, Amos, and others. The general uniformity of the language renders the term ‘dialect’ inapplicable to these minute nuances of style, which for the most part may be char- acteristic of individual writers rather than of regions.
The chief characteristics of the Israelitish dialect were probably fixed by the time of the consolida- tion of the united kingdom under David; and it is not probable that from that time to the first captivity it altered very seriously. The com-
aratively settled state of the country being avourable to the growth of the arts and the development of professions, a certain number of words continued to accrue from foreign sources, chigty Assyria * and Egypt, but to some extent also India+ and Greece,t while old words were utilized to express new ideas, or old roots to form fresh derivatives. In the case of the sacerdotal profession we can apparently trace the formation of a terminology on somewhat the same lines as that by which the terminology of Mohammedan tradition was afterwards formed. The inability of the language to form compounds somewhat limits the resources of the inventors of words; the same form has to do duty for ‘to contaminate’ and ‘to declare impure,’ the same for ‘to expiate’ and ‘ to offer as an expiatory sacrifice.’ Lexicography is slightly more represented in the OT than grammar, albeit it is curious that in the one case where a technical term is defined at length (Dt 15°) that term (72) does not recur elsewhere. The wealth, however, of the old Arabic language seems to have been so great that the preservation rather than the invention of words was desirable.§
6. Periods.—With regard to the periods of the language of the OT it is generally agreed that the Bks. of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel display sutlicient difference from the style of most of the remaining books to {uty the application of some term like New
ebrew to the language in which they are com- posed. All these books have in common the
* eg. Ezk 1683 773, Bab. nidit (Meissner, Babyl. Privatrecht, p. 149); poy, Assyr. iskw (ib. 127) ; 5.3) nikasu, id.
+ For India see Comm. on 2 K 102%. Lagarde (Ges. ADA., first Essay) suggests an Indian origin for jx, 0272 (Ca 418), and 5D.
1 One of the early Rabbis suggested that ni72p in Gn 49° was the Greek word μάχαιρα (R. Eleazar quoted in Levy, VHW2, iii. 116). The identification is tempting, as the word is exceed- ingly obscure; but it is not certainly right. One other pre- exilic word vit5 is certainly identical with the Greek ra\Aaxis (known to Homer); it is un-Semitic in form, and would seem to belong to a monogamous community ; and can be derived with- out much difficulty from Greek roots. The word 12? (Ex 9015
etc.) seems to be a contraction of the Aram. 7°5D?, which in its turn can scarcely be anything but the Greek Awuwad-; for it has no Semitic affinities, and means ‘a meteoric light,’ which is
the very sense the word has in old Greek writers (¢.g. Aeschylus, Choéph. 690, λαμπάδες πεδάοροι, mentioned among physical terrors). How this word got into Hebrew and Aramaic seems a mystery. 735 of 2 K 980 etc. seems to be the Greek ¢uxer, and is certainly identical with Lat. fucus; but the meaning of the Greek word does not quite agree. In post-exilic times the immigration of Greek words is easily intelligible, but very few can be detected with certainty. ΠΣ of 2 Ch 318 [Eng.1®) has a Greek appearance, but cannot be identified >, PES of Ca 89 is in the same case. The identification of >? with Ailey» has found little favour. 2
§ See the collection in Freytag’s Einleitung ins Studium der Arab. Sprache.
$2 LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.
es
employment of Persian* or Aramaic + words for ideas which the older Hebrew was quite equal to expressing, as well as for ideas which perhaps were not known to the older Hebrews; and Ecclesiastes in particular is marked by the intro- duction of several particles Ὁ which seem foreign to the older language, and which seem to imply that the writer had been schooled in some very different vehicle of expression. These particles were in- herited by the post-biblical literature, with some others which are probably asold as Koheleth, though not employed by him. Whether some of his turns of expression were suggested by the necessity of translating from the Greek cannot at present be determined; this ingenious writer has every ap- pearance of being a great innovator in language, and indeed seems to say so (12°). Esther shares with Ecclesiastes some of the new particles, and from the nature of its subject-matter exhibits the Persian element very markedly. The Hebrew of Dn, though marked by conscious imitation of ‘the Bible’ (9°), which is not always, perhaps, felicitous (1016 compared with Is 21%), lapses occasionally into phrases that are characteristic of the very latest style,§ and also has some Syriasms that are peculiar to itself.) The language of the four remaining books is practically the same, although the Persian element is less apparent in Ch, which, on the other hand, exhibit grammatical formations which seem Mishnic{ rather than biblical, and Syriac ** ruther than Hebrew.