* There is a controversy as to the origin of this name. Aben-£zra (d. 1108), Buxtovf (d. lO'-'O), Loscher [F. E.] (d. 1749), Buddeus [,L G.] (d. 1764), Lengerke (d. 18.55), Meier [E.] (d. 1866), Ewald (d. 1875), and others derive it from the Sliemite Eber (Gen. x, 24; xi, 14 sq.), while most of the rabbins and of the fathers (as Jerome, Theodoret. Origen, Chrysostom), Arias Moutanns, Panlus Bnrgensi.«, Miiuster, Luther, Grotins, Scaliger, Ensel)ins, Walton, Clericns, Ko- senrnQller, Gesenius, Eiclihorn, Hengstenberg, Bleek, and others derive it from 1^5' " beyond," following the Sept., which translates "^"ii:? (xiv, 13) by 6 TreptiTtjc, "the man from beyond," referring to Abraham's immigration.
t The passage in Philo {De Vita ]\lii-'^i.% ii, 5U9, ed. Colon., Young's transl. iii, 8'2), according to which the (u-iginal of the Pentateuch was written in Chaldaic, shows how much the Alexandrians of that time had lost the knowledge of the difterence of the dialect, and is to be ascribed to Phi- lo"s ignorance in this dei)artment.
SIIEMITIC LANGUAGES
658
SHEMITIC LANGUAGES
count, we fiml ourselves totally deserted by the histori- tin." Keturniiii;, then, to the ancient view of this pas- sage, we find tliat most of the rabbins,* the fathers,f the older theolos^ians— Huxtorf [John], the son {l)issi'rt.PlnL Theol. [Hasil. l(i(;2], Diss, i), Walton {I'rokij. ni/d sij.), PfeLffer [A.] {Decus Select. Exercitt. bill., in his JJubia I'erafa, p. b9 sq.), St. Morinns {J)e Linr/. Primiera [ Ul- traj. Itj94j), Loscher[Val.J {l>e Cuusis lAiui. //ebr.\,'I,b), Carpzov i^Jiit. Sua:]). 174 sq.), among the moderns— and, with some limitation, Pareaii, Hiivernick, Yon tJerlach, liaumgarten, and others, believe that Hebrew was the jirimitive language of mankind, while sotne contend that if any of the Asiatic tongues may claim the honor of being the ancestral language of our race, the palm should be given to the Sanscrit. Between these two opinions the question now rests, and "it is astonishing," says Prof. JluUer (Science of Laiic/uuge.i, 133), "what an amount of real learning and ingenuity was wasted on this question during the 17th and l^>th centuries. . . . It might have been natural for theolngians in the 4th and 5th centuries, many of whom knew neitlicr Hebrew nor any language except their own, to take it, for grant- ed that Hebrew was the source of all languages ^ but there is neither in the Old nor in the New Test, a single word to necessitate this view. Of the language of Adam we know nothing; but if Hebrew, as we know it, was one of the languages that sprang from the confusion of tongues at Babel, it could not well have been the lan- guage of Adam, or of the w hole earth ' when the whole earth was still of one speech.'" The first who really conquered the prejudice that Hebrew was the source of all language was Leibnitz, the contemporary and rival of Newton. " There is as much reason," he said, " for supposing Hebrew to have been the primitive language of mankind as there is for adopting the view of Sera- pius, who published a work at Antwerp, in 1550, to prove that Dutch was the language spoken in Paradise." In a letter to Tenzel, Leibnitz writes: "To call Hebrew the primitive language is like calling the branches of a tree primitive branches, or like imagining that in some country hewn trunks would grow instead of trees. Such ideas may be conceived, but they do not agree with the laws of nature and with the harmony of the universe — that is to say, with the Divine Wisdom."
(3.) Character and Development oj' the Hebrew Lan- guage.— In relation to the rest of the Shemitic languages, the Hebrew, whether regarded as the primitive language or not, has for the most part retained the stamp of high antiquity, originality, and greater simplicity and purity of forms. In its earliest written state it exhibits, in the writings of Moses, a perfection of structure which was never surpassed. As it had, no doubt, been modified be-
•"And all the inhabitants of the earth were [of] one langtnige, and of one speech, nnd one counsel; fur tliey pp.ike the holy liuiirnagc l)y which llie world w;is crented lit ihe hegiiniiiig" (TMrgnm ou Geii. xi, 1 ; coinp. also Rushi and Ahen-Ezia, ad loc).
t The fathers of the Chnich have never expresced any doubt on this poim. Jerome (d. 420), in one of his epis- tles to D:iniiisug, writes, "The whole of antiquity {iini- vcrsa aiitiquitciH) affirms that Hebrew, in which the Old Test, is written, was the be^innins; of all human si)eech ;" and in his Crnnm. in Suph. c. 'A, he siiys, " Linuuani He- braicam omniinn liiiguarum es^e matricem." Origen (d. 'i.fA), in his eleventh homily on the hook of Numbers, ex- pre>!^es his belli ll hat Ihe Ilebiew linignnge, originally giv- en throniih Adam, retnained in that part "f the world which was ihechoFeii portion of God: not left, like the rest, to one of liis angels. Chrysostom (d.404) says, "God left in Eher's hciuse the original language as a perpetual memory of his
judgment" (auror o "iL/Stp tfievt Trjv ainiiv tX'^" ('"•AefiK, hi'ncp Kui TTpnre^iOVt'iva Kai tovjo (Tt^fjielvv ti^apytv -y^vt^rat tTv fiiaifii-atu)^ [Horn. XXX, in Gen. p. 80(i, ed. Montf.j), and Au- gustine (d. 480), in his I>e Civitate Dei, xvi, 11, "Qnie lin- gua prins huinano geiieri non inimerito creditur fuisse communis, deinceps ilebrtea est nuiicui)atii" (i.e. his fam- ily [Heber's] prei^erved that language which is not un- reasonably believed lo have been the common language of the race ; it was on this account Ihenceforth called He- brew). Theodorel (d. Vi'l), in f/iufxt. in Genenin, \i. (io, how- ever, believes, like Delil/.sch, that the .Syriac was the prim- itive Innirnage, holding that Hebrew was lirst iutrouuced by God through Mut>es.as a holy language.