written in the same dialect, as might naturally be expected from an author who had so long resided in Chaldea, and who treated of many particulars of the history of that nation.

"It is also remarkable, that the eleventh verse of the tenth chapter of Jeremiah is written in Chaldee; for, as it contains a profession of the faith of the Jews, the prophet, who at the commencement of the captivity held a correspondence with them by letters, thought it necessary to dictate to them the very words they should use to the Chaldeans, who would endeavour to entice them to idolatry -Thus shall ye say unto them, The Gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish,' &c.

"The other parts of the sacred volume leave no room for suspecting any change, either as to language or letters; for such of them as were written before the captivity are in pure Hebrew, a few Egyptian words in the Pentateuch excepted, which indicate, however, the affinity of both languages; as for instance, TN abrec, (Gen. xli. 43.) from the Hebrew T habrec, (Infin. Hiph.) to

' bow the knee,' viz. to Joseph :-—and

y

Tzaphnath-Phaaneach, the name given him by Pharaoh (Gen. xli. 45.), when he ordered that high honour to be paid him. The first of these names comes, evidently, from the Hebrew

, tzaphan, to conceal; but the origin of the latter is not agreed on-some deriving it from

, phaan, considered as an Arabic word,27 which signifies to open; while others will have it to be a Coptic,28 signifying things future. But Vitringa derives it from the Hebrew phana,

to behold or contemplate: 29—hence, one who contemplates things secret or occult, or, as others express it, a revealer of secrets, in allusion to Joseph's interpretation of dreams.

"From these, and a few other such names mentioned by Moses, among which his own has not been forgotten, the affinity of the ancient Egyptian language to the Hebrew has been in

27" J. Clerici Commen. in Gen. xli. 45.

28" Robertson, Clavis Pent. in eundem locum. Vitring. Observ. Sac. 1. i. p. 73.

29 66

ferred; 30 and, as the latter, soon after the captivity, ceased to be universally spoken, and was rather a written than a living language, it was not liable to change like the languages of other nations, which the interests of commerce, and the progress of arts and sciences, have variously mixed and connected with each other. Besides, no grammar 31 having been made for the Hebrew

30This affinity is confirmed by other instances still more striking; for the name of the country itself— DD, Mitzraim, is derived from D, matzur, a strong-hold, or fortification; there being no place more indebted to nature for security than Egypt; and it is remarkable that, from its division into Upper and Lower, the name is used in the dual number. The Nile too, its most celebrated river, is called, Nachal (Gen. xv. 18. and Num. xxxiv. 5.), which in Hebrew signifies a stream—a torrent, or valley through which a torrent runs; and, if we may credit Pomp. Mela (1. iii. c. 16.), the reputed source of the Nile is, by the Ethiopians, called Nuchal, which confirms this derivation. Vitringa remarks, that in the Phoenician and Egyptian languages it is called Neel-Nel or Niel, whence Neiλos.

31

"The first Hebrew grammar was written about the year 900, by Saadias, surnamed Gaon, i. e. illustrious. He was master of the Jewish academy at Sora, near Babylon, and the first who translated the Pentateuch into Arabic. Kennicott's Gen. Dissert. p. 19.

for many years after Malachi, the last of the prophets who wrote in it, no alteration could have since taken place; for, as it is difficult to write accurately in a dead language even with the help of a grammar, so it is impossible without one.

"Here it may perhaps be objected, that the vowel points are subject to variation, and have probably undergone many changes, before they were brought to their present state of perfection; consequently, that these changes must have affected the language itself, of which the points are a part.

"To this I reply, that the points, in whatever light the present state of the language may place them, are yet neither an original nor an essential part of it; and therefore any alterations that might have been made in them could not affect the purity of the Hebrew, nor weaken the arguments advanced in its support.

66

This will appear from a due consideration of the principle from which I have deduced, in my fifth argument, the originality of the Hebrew alphabet. But, for the better understanding the

application of this principle in the present case, I shall, first, briefly state the different opinions that have been entertained of the origin and antiquity of the Hebrew points.”

Here ends the VIIth Chapter. With respect to that concerning the points, it is alike highly satisfactory and convincing in its way with the preceding. It is rather too long to transcribe fully; neither do I wish to trespass too much on the valuable time of the gentleman whom I have the honour to address. I will, however, take three of its final pages, from which an idea of the whole may be formed.

The author, after giving the different opinions of Prideaux, Lightfoot, Demetrius, &c., on this head, goes on to prove that the points were neither essential nor necessary to the true reading of the Hebrew while the language was a living one. The period in which they were first used he deems unimportant: "it is of no consequence to know," says he, "at what particular time they were in