Whether it is possible to obtain any fixed lin- guistic epochs in the classical and ante-classical literature seems exceedingly doubtful. It is indeed possible to tell Aramaisms by phonetic rules ; but
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST.
LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TEST. 33
as Aramaisms meet us in very early literature,—e.g. one of the characteristic words in the story of Jephthah is an Aramaism, a word which occurs also in Deborah’ssong,*—no argument as to date can be drawn from their occurrence, except when they belong to the classes already noticed. From the fact that the Canaanitish and Aramaic peoples have the same modification of the old Arabic alpha- bet, which they, indeed, subsequently developed somewhat differently, from the fact that the oldest Aramaic most resembles Canaanitish, and that one of the oldest Canaanitish inscriptions which we possess contains an Aramaic word,+ it would seem that the two nations though speaking different languages migrated simultaneously, and, until the final extinction of Canaanitish, did not cease bor- rowing from each other’s vocabulary. We should obtain more fixed points from the internal growth of the language, if the literature were sufficiently large to enable us to name with precision the inventors of words; but this we are not able to do. Most of the passages that might seem of use for the history of particular words, turn out not to be so. In Jer 23% the use of the word massa for ‘oracle’ is emphatically forbidden ; but we find it employed nevertheless by authors far later than Jeremiah (Mal 1"). The words of Dt 248 seem to imply the existence in some form of the technical rules of Lv 13 and 14, but it is impossible to say how many of the terms there employed existed in the time of the Deuteronomist. A very little of the sacerdotal terminology can be traced back to those ancient times before the Canaanites separated into nations,} but for the origin of most of it we have no data.
The poetical books have been left out of the above considerations, because choice and archaic language is characteristic of the poetry of all nations, and the widely divergent dates assigned by the best scholars to various psalms show the difficulty that is felt in distinguishing the really archaic from affected archaism. The five poetical books of the OT would seem to have emanated from different schools, and the Psalms and Proverbs probably also contain materials collected from ve different ages. That they emanated from schools is shown by the predominance in each of a peculiar vocabulary, which in the case of the Psalms would seem to have been inherited by the authors of the much later Psalms of Solomon. The obscurity and rarity of the expressions is in other cases no clue to the date of the Psalms, for some of the least intelligible phrases are found in compositions which are agreed to be exceedingly late.§ The Proverbs are remarkable as professing to embody the com- positions of non-Israelites, but the chapters in which these are collected may perhaps have been translated, as indeed the text of Pr 25! implies that the proverbs of Solomon were. The nature of the collection prevents it from preserving much of the
opular language, as the proverbs of most nations
o, and as a collection of sayings current among the Israelites, such as those to which the prophets occasionally refer (cf. Jer 23° 31%, Ex 117), would undoubtedly have done. But these exhibit the re-
*30. Moore in his valuable commentary says such an Aramaism is impossible in Old Hebrew ; but is not this a ‘ Macht- apruch’? Similarly, Dillmann tries toexplainaway ®’>¥ in Gn 420. ΞΡ of 2817), 1p: of Jer 205, are also Aramaic. If the form kattal be everywhere Aramaic, as it seems to be, it would be difficult to point to any portion of the OT that would be certainly free from Aramaism (see Hos 898, 1 5. 16. 10). Another striking case of a word known only from the Aramaic is ΘΟ ΠΕ in Hezekiah’s ode (Is 3818),
t nex in the patera of Baal Lebanon.
teg. aby, byb5 aby (at any rate the verb). 5555 would seem od been borrowed by the Egyptians, whence the Copt.
ue
§ See e.g. Pss 74. 80.
VOL. I1I.—?
mains of a somewhat developed philosophical, or perhaps we may say mystic vocabulary, and are marked by the further recurrence of several phrases, which, though not technical, seem to have been employed only in the school of the writers.* The Book of Job, which is ostensibly non-Israelitish throughout, is probably, from a linguistic point of view, the most remarkable in the OT, though to what extent (if at all) it contains non-Israelitish materials cannot with the present evidence be de- termined. Choice and obsolete phrases seem to be paraded here, as in the artificial poetry of tha Arabs ; but the commentary which may originally have accompanied them has not been handed down. Modern criticism is inclined to ascribe this buok to a series of writers; but if so, they must have had access to the same sort of literature, for eren a portion of such doubtful authenticity as the Elihu speeches differs from the rest, not so much in the quality of the language.as in the quantity of ob- seure and striking expressions, many of which can here be interpreted (like those in the rest of the book) from the Arabic and Aramaic languages. It is probable that the Canticles preserve more of the popular style than any other portion of the OT poetry. e matter is such that the employment of a rustic dialect lends it a special charm ; but the dialect cannot any more than the others be located. The language of the Lamentations has some peculiarities of its own, but also has much in common with that of the Psalms.+