Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

A time of public difcontent is the harvest of poor authors, because the most defpicable fcribbler can then render himself of importance with the vulgar, either by flattering their prepoffeffions, or gratifying their fpleen. It was against fuch alone the Critical Reviewers declared war: they thought it their duty to endeavour to expel the poifon of national animofity, by expofing the unjuftifiable manner in which it was propagated; and took every opportunity of fhewing, that fuch writers were equally dull and rancorous. Their attention was fixed not upon England or Scotland, but upon truth and falfhood, upon liberal and illiberal publications; in fhort, they were accused of taking part in a national difpute merely because they thought themselves obliged, on all occafions, to point out how intimately dulnefs is connected with faction.

Such are the fources of the impotent attacks made upon the Critical Reviewers by those, and those only, who have felt the justice of their decifions. Left this affertion fhould carry with it fome appearance of arrogance, they humbly beg leave to put the following queftion to every difinterested reader of sense, candour, and learning: Whether he knows any work fubfift, in a tolerable degree of reputation with the public, after having been condemned by the authors of this Review? If any fuch work can be produced, the authors are willing to make a public retractation.

If no fuch inftance can be brought, they hope the inference is fair, when they fay, that it amounts to an acknowledgment of their never having condemned any work of real, permanent, merit; and confequently, that the abuse they have had fo often and fo plentifully bestowed upon them, rifes from writers of a contrary character.

The teft to which they appeal is the more trying for them, as both their friends and enemies have a large field of investigation.-They now enter on the twenty-third volume of their work, confequently the pieces they have reviewed are multifarious, and afford numerous objects of enquiry. They may, therefore, fafely conclude this addrefs to the Public, with two lines from a poet not only of great genius, but long experience, the late Dr. Young:

Time is the judge; Time has no friend nor foe :
Falfe fame muft wither, and the true will grow.

[ ]

THE

CRITICAL REVIEW..

For the Month of January, 1767.

ARTICLE I.

A Differtation concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points, and Accents. By John Gill, D. D. 8vo. Pr. 6 s. Keith.

THE

HE author of this Differtation has investigated the antiquity of the Hebrew language, letters, vowel-points, and accents, with great industry, fagacity, and learning; and tho' we differ from him in fome particulars, especially concerning. the authority of the points, yet we have read his performance with pleasure ; as it exhibits a clear and distinct view of the controverfy, and all the arguments by which his opinion is fup ported. In the preface he endeavours to defend the character, of the Maforets against the cenfure and ridicule of modern writers.

There have been innumerable difputes about the primitive language. Several nations have contended for the right of precedency in this refpe&t; but the Syriac, or Chaldee, and the Hebrew, are generally thought to have the best claim to this honour. Our author confiders their respective pretenfions; and, having affigned his reafons for not allowing the fuperior antiquity of the Syriac, propofes the following arguments in favour of the Hebrew tongue.

I. The Hebrew alphabet appears to have been the first alphabet of all the eastern languages; and from thence other nations feem to have derived the names, the number, the order, and, in many inftances, the form of their letters.

II. The perfection and purity of the Hebrew language is a proof of its antiquity; as that which is perfect, pure, and underived, must be antecedent to that which is imperfect, corrupt, and derived.

III. The paronómafia which Adam used, when he called his wife woman, seems to be an evidence of the originality of the Hebrew tongue.

VOL. XXIII. January; 1767.

IV. The

[ocr errors]

IV. The names of perfons and places before the confufion at Babel, are in the Hebrew language, and are plainly derived from Hebrew roots.

V. The law was written in Hebrew by the finger of God, and the facred books were compofed in the fame language by divine infpiration. Now it is reasonable to conclude, that the language in which God wrote the Decalogue, and in which he inspired the prophets to write, must be the fame in which he converfed with Adam, and gave him a faculty of speaking: if fo, the Hebrew is the primitive language.

Thefe arguments are ftated in a more ample manner by this learned writer; but all that can be admitted, is the probabi lity of his hypothefis. The authors of the Universal History have invalidated fome of these arguments, and afferted the priority of the Syriac tongue: however, allowing the preference to the Hebrew, it is natural to fuppofe, that the firft language of mankind must have undergone great alteration, in the fpace of twenty-four centuries, between the creation and the time of Mofes.

The author now proceeds to enquire, why this language is called Hebrew; and, having confidered several other etymologies, he prefers the opinion of thofe, who derive the name from Eber, the father of Phaleg. For, as St. Auftin obferves, before the confufion, language was one, and common to all, and needed no name to diftinguish it; it was enough to call it the fpeech of man, or the human language; but when there was a confufion of tongues, and fo more than one, it became neceffary to diftinguish them by names; and what name more proper for the first language than that of Hebrew, (or Ebrew, as our author would have it written) from Eber, the last man in whofe days it was alone and common to all? for in his fon's days the earth was divided into different nations speaking different languages. Moreover, Shem is faid to be the father of all the children of Eber; and as they were afterwards called Ifraelites from Ifrael, and Jews from Judah, fo from Eber they were called Hebrews, and their language Hebrew. This is farther manifeft from Numb xxiv. 24. where the names of Affur and Eber denote the Affyrians and Hebrews.

It has been a controverfy among learned men, for a century or two paft, whether the modern letters used by the Jews, in which their facred books are now extant, are the fame in which the law and the prophets were originally written. This is denied by fome; and it has been affirmed, that the original letters of the Hebrews, in which the books of the Old Tefta- ment before the times of Ezra were written, were what are called Samaritan; and that Ezra, after the return of the Jews

from

from the captivity in Babylon, changed thefe letters for the Merubbah, or fquare ones fince in ufe, and in them wrote all the facred books then in being, and left the ancient letters to the Samaritans; and this notion has been embraced upon the teftimonies of Eufebius and Jerom. But the foundation of it appears to be a Jewish tradition; for, it is not likely, fays Dr. Gill, that the law fhould be given to the Ifraelites, and the facred books be written in Samaritan letters, that is, in the old Phoenician characters, which belonged to the race of Canaan; and if they were, that the people of the Jews could be prevailed upon to part with them, in which their holy books were written; and if they were written in them, as then, befides the Pentateuch, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, the Pfalms of David, and books of Solomon, and the Prophets before the captivity, must be written in the fame character; and if so, it is ftrange that not one copy of either of these fhould be heard of, feen, or known; nor is it probable that the bocks of the Old Teftament fhould be written in two different characters; those before the captivity in Samaritan letters, and thofe after it, in the square letters, as they must be according to this hypothefis. It is not to be believed, that Ezra would attempt fuch a change of himself without an order from God, which no where appears, when fuch a charge against innovations stands in Deut. iv. 2. nor does it feem poffible that he should be able effectually to do it; it could never be in his power to call in all the copies of the facred books, which the Ifraelites had carried into the feveral parts of the world, through their captivities; nor is it probable that the Samaritans, if poffeffed of the square character, which is grand and majestic, fhould ever be prevailed upon to part with it, for a character fo ugly, fo ill shaped and deformed as the Samaritan is; nor was it in the power of Ezra to oblige them to it: to which may be added, that furely it can't be thought that thofe ugly and ill-shaped letters were formed by the finger of God, and the law written by him in them, the contrary to which is now universally affirmed by the Jews; and yet with what confidence has this been afferted, and thofe of a different fentiment treated with moft abufive language, unbecoming men of learning, by fuch as Scaliger, Drufius, and Voflius, as if they were men but half learned, half divines, mere fools, fceptics, &c. but of late I obferve this confidence abates, and learned men begin to think that it is far from being a determined point, what were the original characters of the Hebrews.'

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinua »